Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 17949/03

It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V; Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII; Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 42096/98, 4 March 2003).

In this connection the Court reiterates that the existence of effective remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, inter alia, Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002-VIII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 40, ECHR 2006-...).

Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 17949/03

It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V; Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII; Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 42096/98, 4 March 2003).

It held that no persuasive arguments had been adduced to show that Article 417 of the Civil Code could at the relevant time be relied on for the purpose of seeking compensation for excessive length of proceedings or that such action offered reasonable prospects of success (see, mutatis mutandis, Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 42096/98, 4 March 2003, Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§ 32-34, 14 October 2003, and for administrative proceedings Boszko v. Poland, no. 4054/03, § 35, 5 December 2006).

Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 17949/03

It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V; Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII; Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 42096/98, 4 March 2003).

Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 17949/03

The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 17949/03

The Court recalls that it has already held, in the context of Article 13 and remedies for excessive length of proceedings, that such a remedy, or the aggregate of remedies, in order to be "effective" must be capable either of preventing the alleged violation of the right to a "hearing within a reasonable time" or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for a violation that had already occurred (see, mutatis mutandis, Kudla v. Poland, [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158 et seq. ECHR 2000-X).