CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 décembre 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. December 1997 Proszak v. Poland - 25086/94 Judgment 16.12.1997 Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of civil proceedings: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] A.   Period to be taken into consideration Starting-point: 1 May 1993, when declaration whereby Poland recognised right of individual petition for the purposes of Article 25 of the Convention took effect. End: 19 February 1997, when appeal on points of law was dismissed by Tarnobrzeg Regional Court. Total: about three years, nine months and two weeks. Need to have regard to state of case on 1 May 1993. B.   Applicable criteria Complexity as to facts: issue to be resolved had made it essential to obtain specialist medical opinions. Applicant’s conduct: three groundless challenges of reporting judge – failures to attend hearings and refusal to attend for third psychiatric examination had contributed decisively to slowing down proceedings – applicant and her counsel seemed to have coordinated their actions poorly – conduct scarcely consistent with the diligence which must be shown by plaintiff in civil proceedings – authorities dealing with case not responsible for lapse of more than one month between lodging of appeal on points of law and its dismissal for want of any legal basis. Conduct of judicial authorities: almost the whole period falling within Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis had essentially been taken up with search for an expert with sufficient specialist qualifications – reasonable to take view that a third opinion on applicant’s health had been necessary – District Court had done everything possible to obtain it – length of time complained of might at first sight seem excessive, but evidence did not disclose any significant period of inactivity; District Court had even gone so far as to offer to take evidence from applicant at her home in view of her bad health – furthermore, once the expert had been appointed, applicant had refused to undergo examination. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to three).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes