ECHR Article 35-1 – Exhaustion of domestic remedies
Effective domestic remedy
Claim for compensation before the administrative courts in respect of complaint concerning length of civil proceedings: effective remedy
Facts – In his application to the European Court, the applicant complained of the length of domestic civil proceedings to which he had been a party. The Government raised a preliminary objection that he had not exhausted domestic remedies.
Law – Article 35 – 1: The Court had found in its decision in Mets v. Estonia, which concerned a complaint about the length of criminal proceedings, that the fact that the applicant in that case had been awarded compensation by an administrative court meant that he had lost his victim status in the proceedings before the European Court. While the enactment of legislation clearly establishing grounds for awarding compensation for excessively lengthy proceedings and swift procedures for dealing with such claims would contribute considerably to legal certainty in this field, the applicant in that case had nevertheless had at his disposal an effective remedy developed by the practice of the Estonian courts.
Although the cases that had thus far been decided by the administrative courts concerned the length of criminal proceedings, the Estonian Supreme Court had indicated in a judgment of 22 March 2011 (Osmjorkin no. 3 3 1 85 09) that Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution provided a right to proceedings within a reasonable time and that compensation could be awarded by virtue of Article 25. Noting that the provisions and principles relied on by the Supreme Court were of a general nature and not specific to criminal proceedings, the European Court found it hard to see how a different conclusion could be reached in respect of a complaint concerning the length of civil proceedings. The applicant was therefore required to have recourse to the administrative courts in order to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court emphasised, however, that its position might be subject to review in the future depending, in particular, on the domestic courts’ capacity to establish consistent case-law in line with the Convention requirements.
Conclusion: inadmissible (failure to exhaust domestic remedies). (See Mets v. Estonia (dec.), 38967/10, 7 May 2013)
Citations:
32897/12 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 284
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.522576
