003-3003217-3321182

WyrokETPCz2010-01-28

Analiza orzeczenia

Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.

Zagadnienie prawne

Czy nadmierna długość postępowania sądowego narusza prawo do rzetelnego procesu w rozsądnym terminie z art. 6 § 1 Konwencji? Czy brak skutecznego środka odwoławczego w przypadku przewlekłości postępowania narusza art. 13 Konwencji? Czy dyskryminacja w prawach spadkowych ze względu na urodzenie poza małżeństwem narusza art. 14 w związku z art. 8 Konwencji?

Ratio decidendi

Komunikat prasowy nie zawiera szczegółowego uzasadnienia (ratio decidendi) wyroków, a jedynie ich konkluzje. Wskazuje, że nadmierna długość postępowania sądowego stanowi naruszenie art. 6 § 1 Konwencji, a w niektórych przypadkach brak skutecznego środka odwoławczego w tej kwestii narusza art. 13. Ponadto, Trybunał stwierdził naruszenie art. 14 w związku z art. 8 Konwencji w odniesieniu do dyskryminacji w prawach spadkowych.

Stan faktyczny

Skarżący Hans Herbert Puchstein i Michael Stechauner, austriaccy lekarze, domagali się zwrotu opłat w ramach umowy z Regionalną Kasą Chorych i skarżyli się na długość postępowania oraz brak niezależności i bezstronności Regionalnej Komisji Odwoławczej. Brigitte Brauer, obywatelka Niemiec, urodzona poza małżeństwem, nie mogła dochodzić swoich praw spadkowych. W innych sprawach (Rambauske, Pavić, Risteska) skarżący skarżyli się na nadmierną długość postępowań niekarnych.

Rozstrzygnięcie

W sprawach Puchstein v. Austria i Stechauner v. Austria: stwierdza naruszenie art. 6 § 1 (długość postępowania) i brak naruszenia art. 6 § 1 (rzetelność). W sprawie Brauer v. Germany: skreśla sprawę z listy po ugodzie polubownej. W sprawach Rambauske v. Austria i Pavić v. Croatia: stwierdza naruszenie art. 6 § 1 i art. 13. W sprawie Risteska v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia": stwierdza naruszenie art. 6.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

074 28.01.2010 Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgments[1] concerning Austria, Croatia and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments, available only in English. Puchstein v. Austria (application no. 20089/06) Stechauner v. Austria (no. 20087/06) The applicants, Hans Herbert Puchstein and Michael Stechauner, are two Austrian medical practitioners who live in St Oswald and Großau respectively. The cases concerned their claim for reimbursement of fees under a contract with the Regional Health Insurance Board. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within a reasonable time), both applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and that the Regional Appeals Commission had not been independent and impartial. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: 2,000 euros (EUR) each (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 each (costs and expenses) Brauer v. Germany (no. 3545/04) The applicant, Brigitte Brauer, is a German national who was born in 1948 in Oberschwöditz (the former German Democratic Republic (GDR)). She now lives in Lennestadt (Germany (FRG)). In a judgment delivered on 29 May 2009, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) on account of the fact that the applicant, having been born outside of marriage, was unable to assert her inheritance rights. The Court held that the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and invited the parties, within three months from the date of the judgment, to notify the Court of any agreement that they might reach. In today’s judgment the Court decided to strike the case out of the list following a friendly settlement under which Ms Brauer is to receive EUR 115,000 in respect of all and any claims related to her application. Just satisfaction Friendly settlement Length-of-proceedings cases Rambauske v. Austria (no. 45369/07) Pavić v. Croatia (no. 21846/08) Risteska v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 38183/04) In these cases, the applicants complained in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. In the cases of Rambauske and Pavić the applicants also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). (Rambauske and Pavić) Violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 (Risteska) Violation of Article 6 *** These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int). Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17‑member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.