003-68305-68773
WyrokETPCz2000-10-26
Analiza orzeczenia
Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.
Zagadnienie prawne
Czy przewlekłość postępowania cywilnego, trwającego ponad siedem lat i wciąż nierozstrzygniętego, naruszyła prawo skarżącego do rozpoznania sprawy w rozsądnym terminie, gwarantowane przez art. 6 ust. 1 Konwencji?Ratio decidendi
Trybunał uznał, że postępowanie cywilne, które trwało siedem lat i cztery miesiące i nadal było w toku, przekroczyło rozsądny termin wymagany przez art. 6 ust. 1 Konwencji. Długotrwałość postępowania, bez wskazania na jego zakończenie, stanowiła naruszenie prawa skarżącego do rozstrzygnięcia jego praw cywilnych w rozsądnym czasie.Stan faktyczny
Skarżący, Aleksander Sobczyk, obywatel Polski, został zwolniony z grupy przedsiębiorstw przemysłowych w sektorze węglowym. W związku z tym wszczęto postępowanie cywilne, które w momencie rozpatrywania sprawy przez Trybunał trwało już siedem lat i cztery miesiące i nadal nie zostało zakończone.Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał jednogłośnie stwierdził naruszenie art. 6 ust. 1 Konwencji. Skarżącemu przyznano 20 000 PLN z tytułu szkody niemajątkowej oraz 2 000 PLN na pokrycie kosztów i wydatków.Pełny tekst orzeczenia
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
767
26.10.2000
Press release issued by the Registrar
CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING LUXEMBOURG, POLAND,
PORTUGAL AND ITALY
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments. Only G.J. v. Luxembourg is final[1].
SECTION 2
(1) G.J. v. Luxembourg (application no. 21156/93) Violation Article 6 § 1
G.J., a Danish national, complained about the length (six years) of proceedings to which he was a party relating to the liquidation of the limited liability company in which he owned 90% of the shares. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded the applicant 45,000 Danish kroner (DKK) for non-pecuniary damage and DKK 35,000 for costs and expenses. The judgment is available only in English.
(2) Leoni v. Italy (no. 43269/98) Violation Article 6 § 1
Pier Paolo Leoni, an Italian national, complained about the fairness of civil proceedings. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to a court) and awarded the applicant 10,000,000 Italian lire (ITL) for non-pecuniary damage. Judgment in French.
SECTION 4
(3) Sobczyk v. Poland (nos. 25693/94 and 27387/95) Violation Article 6 § 1
Aleksander Sobczyk, a Polish national, complained about civil proceedings, which lasted seven years, four months and are still pending, following his dismissal from a group of industrial enterprises in the coal industry. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to have civil rights determined within a reasonable time) and awarded the applicant 20,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) for non-pecuniary damage and PLN 2,000 for costs and expenses. Judgment in English.
(4) Castanheira Barros v. Portugal (no. 36945/97) Violation Article 6 § 1
Jorge Manuel Castanheira Barros, a Portuguese national born in 1952 and living in Coimbra, complained about civil proceedings relating to his pay, which lasted nine years. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 900,000 Portuguese escudos (PTE) for non-pecuniary damage and PTE 150,000 for costs and expenses. Judgment in French.
The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).
Registry of the European Court of Human Rights
F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex
Contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)
Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15)
Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.
[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.
© Rada Europy / Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka, źródło: HUDOC (hudoc.echr.coe.int), pozyskano 14.07.2026. · Źródło