Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
April 2017
This factsheet does not bind the Court and is not exhaustive
Pilot Judgments1
What is the pilot judgment procedure?
Many of the about 88,000 cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights are
so-called repetitive cases, which derive from a common dysfunction at the national
level. The pilot judgment procedure was developed as a technique of identifying the
structural problems underlying repetitive cases against many countries and imposing an
obligation on States to address those problems. Where the Court receives several
applications that share a root cause, it can select one or more for priority treatment
under the pilot procedure. In a pilot judgment, the Courts task is not only to decide
whether a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights occurred in the specific
case but also to identify the systemic problem and to give the Government clear
indications of the type of remedial measures needed to resolve it.
A key feature of the pilot procedure is the possibility of adjourning, or freezing, related
cases for a period of time on the condition that the Government act promptly to adopt
the national measures required to satisfy the judgment. The Court can, however, resume
examining adjourned cases whenever the interests of justice so require.
1
. This factsheet refers only to pilot judgments in the strict sense, i.e. those which specify, in accordance with
Rule 61 3 of the Rules of Court of the European Court of Human Rights, in the operative provisions (the
conclusion) of the judgment the nature of the systemic problem and the type of remedial measures that the
State concerned must adopt. It does not include judgments in which a systemic problem and the adoption of
measures are merely mentioned in the reasons (Courts reasoning).
2
. See the press release of 24 March 2011.
Factsheet Pilot judgments
2
Factsheet Pilot judgments
3
Factsheet Pilot judgments
law by which to complain of the length of the proceedings in question. However, Law no.
6384 was a direct and practical consequence of the pilot-judgment procedure applied in
mmhan Kaplan v. Turkey, designed to remedy complaints relating to the excessive
length of proceedings. Although that Law was not in force when the applicants lodged
their application, the Court declared that it was not in a position to state at the present
stage of the proceedings that the remedy currently available was not effective and
accessible. It followed that the complaint had to be rejected for failure to exhaust
domestic remedies.
In another inadmissibility decision of 4 June 2013 (Demirolu and Others v. Turkey),
the Court observed that on 9 January 2013 the Turkish National Assembly had enacted
Law no. 6384. Also, although the application had been lodged before the entry into force
of the law, the Court deemed it justified to make an exception to the general principle
whereby the assessment of whether domestic remedies had been exhausted was carried
out with reference to the date on which the application was lodged. The Court considered
that the applicants must apply to the compensation commission set up under Law no.
6384. Therefore the application had to be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic
remedies. That finding was without prejudice to a possible re-examination of the issue of
the actual effectiveness of the remedy in the light of practice and of the decisions given
by the compensation commission and the national courts. The burden of proof with
regard to the effectiveness of the remedy would fall on the respondent State.
In a judgment of 10 March 2015 (Behet Ta v. Turkey), the Court observed that
following the mmhan Kaplan v. Turkey pilot judgment, a new compensatory remedy in
respect of the excessive length of proceedings had been introduced in Turkey. However,
in delivering its pilot judgment in that case, the Court had reserved the right to pursue
its examination of similar complaints of which the Turkish Government had already been
given notice in other cases. Deciding to carry out an examination of this kind in the
present case and thus declaring admissible the applicants complaint concerning the
length of the compensation proceedings instituted by him, the Court observed that the
proceedings in question had lasted approximately eight years and three months and that
their duration had not been attributable to the complexity of the case or the applicants
conduct. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 6 1 (right
to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention as regards the length of the
proceedings.
4
Factsheet Pilot judgments
- case of Glykantzi: to put in place, within one year from the date on which the judgment
became final, an effective remedy that could provide appropriate and sufficient redress
in such cases of excessively lengthy proceedings. The Court has now adjourned, for that
period, its examination of all cases which solely relate to the length of civil proceedings
in the Greek courts.
Follow-up: Following these two pilot judgments, the Greek authorities introduced a
compensatory remedy, under Law no. 4239/2014, with the aim of providing appropriate
and sufficient redress in cases where criminal and civil proceedings, or proceedings
before the Audit Court, exceeded a reasonable time.
In a judgment of 9 October 2014 (Xynos v. Greece), the Court found that the new
remedy could be regarded as effective and accessible. It concluded in particular that the
applicants complaint about the allegedly excessive length of two sets of proceedings he
had brought before the Audit Court was to be rejected, as the application was out of
time in respect of the first set and he had not exhausted domestic remedies as regards
the second.
Rutkowski and Others v. Poland
7 July 2015
Structural problem: the considerable scale of the problem of excessive length of
proceedings in Poland accompanied by the lack of sufficient redress for a breach of the
reasonable-time requirement. There were currently about 650 similar cases pending
before the Court and over 300 Polish cases involving the excessive length of judicial
proceedings were pending at the execution stage before the Council of Europe
Committee of Ministers.
Measures requested by the Court: The Court considered that the systemic problem
leading to a practice incompatible with Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial within a
reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention required
Poland to implement comprehensive large-scale legislative and administrative actions.
As regards Article 6 1, the Court abstained from indicating any specific measures to be
taken, noting that the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, in the course of the
execution of judgments, was better placed to monitor such measures that needed to be
taken by Poland. As further regards the practice incompatible with Article 13, the Court
was not persuaded by the Polish Governments argument that a 2013 resolution by the
Polish Supreme Court, acknowledging that the previous practice as regards
compensation for unreasonable length of proceedings had been defective, had put an
end to that practice. The Court noted in particular that it had not been established that
the lower courts in Poland had put the resolution in practice. Indeed in 2013 and 2014
there had been an increased inflow of repetitive cases before the Court involving length
of proceedings and insufficient compensation at national level.
Follow-up: As regards the procedure to be followed in similar cases, the Court decided
that those applications which were pending before the Court were to be communicated
to the Polish Government. It was necessary to allow the Government a two-year time
limit for processing those communicated applications and affording redress to all
victims by way of, for example, friendly settlements.
Gazs v. Hungary
16 July 2015
Structural problem: The Court noted that the violation of the applicants rights in this
case arose out of a structural problem in Hungary concerning excessive length of civil
proceedings and that the domestic legal system offered no effective preventive remedy
or redress for the damage created by such a problem. Against that background, the
Court decided to apply the pilot-judgment procedure, in view of the number of people
affected by the issue and their need for speedy and appropriate redress.
5
Factsheet Pilot judgments
Measures requested by the Court: to introduce, at the latest within one year from the
date on which the Gazs judgment became final, an effective domestic remedy regarding
excessively long civil proceedings. The Court recalled that States could choose between a
remedy to expedite the proceedings and one offering compensation while the former
was preferred as prevention against delay, a compensatory remedy could be appropriate
if proceedings had already been excessively long and in the absence of a preventive
remedy or a combination of both.
Follow-up: The Court decided to adjourn for one year the examination of any similar new
cases introduced after the date on which the Gazs judgment became final, pending the
implementation of the relevant measures by Hungary.
6
Factsheet Pilot judgments
grant the extension requested. On 22 April 2013, the Slovenian authorities nevertheless
requested the Court to reconsider its position in this respect. On 14 May 2013, the Court
decided not to grant this request.
In its judgment on just satisfaction of 12 March 2014, the Grand Chamber observed that
the Slovenian Government had failed to set up a compensation scheme for the erased
by 26 June 2013, when the one-year period referred to in the judgment on the merits
expired. However, the Government had acknowledged that general measures at national
level were required in order to execute the judgment beyond the interests of the
applicants in the case. In this context, the Grand Chamber had due regard to the fact
that the Act on the setting up of an ad hoc compensation scheme had entered into force
in December 2013, and would become applicable on 18 June 2014. This statute was to
introduce compensation on the basis of a lump sum for each month of the erasure and
the possibility of claiming additional compensation under the general tort rules. While it
was for the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers to evaluate the measures adopted,
the Court considered in the exceptional circumstances of the present case that the
solution introduced by the Act appeared to be appropriate. Lastly, noting that there were
some 65 cases involving more than 1,000 applicants pending before the Court, the Court
observed that swift implementation of the judgment was therefore of the utmost
importance.
In October 2016, the Court decided to close the pilot-judgment procedure initiated in
Kuri and Others, considering that it was no longer justified (see the Anastasov and
Others v. Slovenia of 18 October 2016). The Court was satisfied that the system
introduced by the Slovenian Government (and its functioning in practice) following the
Kuri and Others judgment offered to the remaining erased persons who had
regularised their legal status such as the 212 applicants in the case of Anastasov and
Others reasonable prospects of receiving compensation for the damage caused by the
systemic violation of their Convention rights. It noted in particular that the Committee of
Ministers of the Council of Europe, responsible for supervising the implementation of the
European Courts judgments, had recently closed its examination of Kuri and Others as
it was satisfied that all measures required in that judgment had been adopted. The Court
concluded that the matter giving rise to the application Anastasov and Others and the
remaining applications against Slovenia lodged by the erased where the applicants
had regularised their legal status had thus been resolved at national level. Nor did the
Court find any special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in
the European Convention and its Protocols which required the continued examination of
the case.
7
Factsheet Pilot judgments
Follow-up: In view of the fundamental nature of the right not to be treated inhumanly or
degradingly, the Court decided not to adjourn the examination of similar applications
pending before it.
8
Factsheet Pilot judgments
9
Factsheet Pilot judgments
encouraged the Belgian State to take action to reduce the number of offenders with
mental disorders who were detained in prison psychiatric wings without receiving
appropriate treatment, in particular by redefining the criteria for psychiatric detention
along the lines envisaged by the legislative reform under way in Belgium. In the same
vein, the Court welcomed the objective, now enshrined in law, of providing appropriate
therapeutic support to such detainees with a view to their reintegration into society.
Follow-up: The Court gave Belgium a period of two years to remedy the general situation
and decided to adjourn proceedings in all similar cases for two years with effect from the
date on which this judgment became final.
Rezmive and Others v. Romania
25 April 2017 3
Structural problem: a general problem originating in a structural dysfunction specific to
the Romanian prison system; this state of affairs had persisted despite having been
identified by the Court in 2012 (in its judgment in Iacov Stanciu v. Romania of 24 July
2012)
Measures requested by the Court: to introduce measures to reduce overcrowding and
improve the material conditions of detention.; to introduce remedies (a preventive
remedy which had to ensure that post-sentencing judges and the courts could put an
end to situations breaching Article 3 of the Convention and award compensation and a
specific compensatory remedy which had to ensure that appropriate compensation
could be awarded for any violation of the Convention concerning inadequate living space
and/or precarious material conditions).
Follow-up: The Court decided to adjourn the examination of similar applications that had
not yet been communicated to the Romanian Government and to continue its
examination of applications that had already been communicated. Within six months
from the date on which the judgment became final, the Romanian Government had to
provide, in cooperation with the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe,
a precise timetable for the implementation of the general measures.
3
. This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 (final judgments) of the
European Convention on Human Rights.
10
Factsheet Pilot judgments
review its position in the future depending on the Russian courts ability to establish
consistent case-law in line with the requirements of the European Convention on Human
Rights.
In two subsequent judgments of 17 April 2012 (Ilyushkin and Others v. Russia and
Kalinkin and Others v. Russia), the Court noted with regret that there was still no
remedy available in Russia by which to complain of such delays where the judicial
decisions in question imposed obligations in kind on the Russian State. That problem, in
the Courts view, remained unresolved despite the Compensation Act enacted in 2010
following the Burdov (no. 2) judgment. The Court therefore considered that an
application before it continued to be the only means by which these applicants could
assert their rights and obtain effective redress for the clear violations of their
Convention rights.
11
Factsheet Pilot judgments
Hutten-Czapska v. Poland
19 June 2006 (Grand Chamber)
Structural problem: deficiencies in the rent-control provisions of the housing legislation.
The system imposed a number of restrictions on landlords rights, in particular setting a
ceiling on rent levels which was so low that landlords could not even recoup their
12
Factsheet Pilot judgments
maintenance costs, let alone make a profit. The Court estimated that about 100,000
landlords were potentially concerned.
Measures requested by the Court: to secure in the Polish domestic legal order a
mechanism maintaining a fair balance between the interests of landlords and the general
interest of the community, in accordance with the principles of the protection of property
rights under the Convention.
Follow-up: In March 2011 the Court closed the pilot-judgment procedure after it was
satisfied that Poland had changed its laws such that landlords could now recover the
maintenance costs for their property, include in the rent charged a gradual return for
capital investment and make a decent profit and have a reasonable chance of receiving
compensation for past violations of their property rights (see the press release of
31 March 2011).
13
Factsheet Pilot judgments
effective framework of redress for alleged violations of the right to peaceful enjoyment of
possessions; it was for litigants to avail themselves of that opportunity.
14
Factsheet Pilot judgments
particular that they had not been able to withdraw their old foreign-currency savings
deposited with two banks in what is now Bosnia and Herzegovina since the dissolution of
the SFRY. The Court considered it appropriate to apply the pilot-judgment procedure, as
there were more than 1,850 similar applications pending before it, involving more than
8,000 applicants.
Measures requested by the Court: The Court held that Serbia and Slovenia had to make
all necessary arrangements, including legislative amendments, within one year and
under the supervision of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, in order to allow
the applicants, as well as all others in their position, to recover their old foreign-
currency savings under the same conditions as Serbian and Slovenian citizens who had
such savings in domestic branches of Serbian and Slovenian banks.
Follow-up: The Court further decided to adjourn, for one year, examination of all similar
cases against Serbia and Slovenia.
Media Contact:
Tel.: +33 (0)3 90 21 42 08
15