Quick answer
In Kudła v. Poland (Grand Chamber, 26 October 2000, application no. 30210/96), the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been violations of Article 5 § 3 (length of pre-trial detention) and Article 6 § 1 (length of proceedings), and — for the first time — a violation of Article 13 because Polish law provided no effective remedy by which the applicant could complain about the excessive length of the proceedings. It found no violation of Article 3.
Background and facts
The applicant was held in pre-trial detention for a lengthy period, and the criminal proceedings against him lasted many years. He suffered from chronic depression and made a suicide attempt in custody. He complained about the conditions and adequacy of his psychiatric care, the length of his detention and of the proceedings, and the absence of any domestic remedy for the delays.
The complaint
- Article 3 — the conditions of detention and psychiatric care;
- Article 5 § 3 — the length of pre-trial detention;
- Article 6 § 1 — the length of the criminal proceedings; and
- Article 13 — the lack of an effective remedy for the delay.
The Court’s reasoning
The Court found no violation of Article 3, holding that the treatment of the applicant did not reach the threshold of severity. It found the length of his pre-trial detention incompatible with Article 5 § 3, and the overall length of the proceedings incompatible with the reasonable-time requirement of Article 6 § 1.
The most significant development concerned Article 13. Departing from its earlier approach — which had often treated Article 6 § 1 as the more specific provision and dispensed with a separate examination under Article 13 — the Court held that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an arguable complaint that the reasonable-time requirement of Article 6 § 1 has not been respected. The correct interpretation of Article 13, it reasoned, is that it provides an effective remedy by which litigants can complain of excessive length, thereby reinforcing the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time. Since Polish law offered no such remedy, there had been a violation of Article 13.
The judgment
- unanimously, no violation of Article 3;
- violations of Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1; and
- by sixteen votes to one, a violation of Article 13.
Legacy and subsequent case law
Kudła reshaped the Convention’s approach to delay. By requiring an effective domestic remedy for excessive length of proceedings, it prompted many States to introduce specific “length” remedies and compensation schemes, easing the flow of such complaints to Strasbourg and reinforcing the reasonable-time guarantee. It remains the leading authority on the relationship between Article 6 § 1 and Article 13.
What this means for applicants
- You have a right to an effective domestic remedy under Article 13 for excessively long proceedings.
- Excessive pre-trial detention and delay breach Article 6 § 1 and Article 5 § 3.
- Domestic remedies must be exhausted where they exist, so effective length-remedies matter for both applicants and States.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Kudła v. Poland decide?
The Grand Chamber found violations of Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1 for excessive detention and delay, and — for the first time — a violation of Article 13 because there was no effective domestic remedy for the length of the proceedings. It found no violation of Article 3.
Why is Kudła important for Article 13?
It established that Article 13 requires States to provide an effective domestic remedy for complaints about excessive length of proceedings, changing the Court’s previous approach.
What did it change in practice?
Many States introduced specific remedies and compensation schemes for delay, which claimants must generally use before applying to Strasbourg.
Convention Articles engaged
- Article 13 — Right to an Effective Remedy
- Article 5 — Right to Liberty and Security
- Article 6 — Right to a Fair Trial
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden
- Salduz v. Turkey
- Del Río Prada v. Spain
- Navalnyy v. Russia
- Winterwerp v. the Netherlands
- Guzzardi v. Italy
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, or check the admissibility criteria.