Make a Submission
Vol. 39 (2019)
General Articles

The Principles of Subsidiarity and Effectiveness: Two Pillars of an Effective Remedy for Excessive Length of Proceedings within the Meaning of Article 13 ECHR

PDF
  • Elżbieta Morawska
Elżbieta Morawska
University Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński in Warsaw

Published 2021-07-19

Keywords

  • European Convention on Human Rights,
  • European Court of Human Rights,
  • excessive length of proceeding,
  • principle of effectiveness,
  • principle of subsidiarity,
  • right to an effective remedy regarding a hearing within a reasonable time
    • ...More
    Less
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

The Principles of Subsidiarity and Effectiveness: Two Pillars of an Effective Remedy for Excessive Length of Proceedings within the Meaning of Article 13 ECHR. (2021). Polish Yearbook of International Law, 39, 159-185. https://doi.org/10.24425/pyil.2020.134480

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to determine the relationship between the principles of subsidiarity and effectiveness and an effective remedy for the excessive length of proceedings within the legal order of the European Convention on Human Rights. The article assumes that these key principles of the ECHR’s legal order have an impact on such a remedy, both in the normative and practical dimensions. This assumption has helped explain many aspects of the Strasbourg case law regarding this remedy. Concerning the relationship of this remedy with the principle of subsidiarity, it raises issues such as: the “reinforcing” of Art. 6 § 1; the “close affinity” of Arts. 13 and 35 § 1; and the arguability test. In turn, through the prism of the principle of effectiveness, the reasonableness criterion and the requirement of diligence in the proceedings are presented, followed by the obligations of States to prevent lengthiness of proceedings and the obligations concerning adequate and sufficient redress for such an excessive length of proceedings. The analysis shows that an effective remedy with respect to the excessive length of proceedings is not a definitive normative item, as the Court consistently adds new elements to its complex structure, taking into account complaints regarding the law and practice of States Parties in the prevention of and compensation for proceedings of an excessive length.

PDF

References

  1. Balcerzak M., Concept of General Effective Remedy in the Case Law of the ECHR and the Perspective of Polish Legal Order, [in:] Dysfunkcje polskiego prawa: jak poprawić system środków prawnych w Polsce?: IX Seminarium Warszawskie, 16 października 2015 r. / Dysfunctions of Polish law: how to improve the system of legal remedies in Poland? : IX Warsaw Seminar, 16 October 2015,, Ministerstwo Spraw Zagranicznych. Departament do Spraw Postępowań przed Międzynarodowymi Organami, Warszawa: 2016.
  2. Balcerzak M., Konstrukcja prawa do skutecznego środka odwoławczego (right to an effective remedy) w uniwersalnym i regionalnych systemach ochrony praw człowieka, in: J. Białocerkiewicz, M. Balcerzak, A. Czeczko-Durlak (eds.), Księga jubileuszowa Profesora Tadeusza Jasudowicza, Toruń: 2004.
  3. Balcerzak M., Zagadnienie precedensu w prawie międzynarodowym praw człowieka [The problem of precedence in international human rights law], Dom Organizatora TNOK, Toruń: 2008, https://repozytorium.umk.pl/bitstream/handle/item/4751/MB_Precedens2008.pdf?sequence=1 [accessed: 13.07.2021].
  4. Barkhuysena T., Artikel 13 EVRM effectieve nationale rechts-bescherming bij schending van mensenrechten, Koninklijke Vermande, Lelystad: 1998.
  5. Beernaert M.-A., De l’épuisement des voies de recours internes en cas de dépassement du délai raisonnable, 60 Revue Trimestrielle des Droits de l’Homme 905 (2004).
  6. Bernhardt R., Evolutive Treaty Interpretation, Especially of the European Convention of Human Rights, 42 German Yearbook of International Law 11 (1999).
  7. Brownlie I., Principles of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 1998.
  8. Clayton E.G.R., Tomlinson H., The Law of Human Rights, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 2000.
  9. Collected Edition of the “Travaux Préparatoires” of the European Convention on Human Rights, vol. 1: Preparatory Commission of the Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Consultative Assembly (11 May-13 July 1949), The Hague: 1975.
  10. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, European Treaty Series no. 5.
  11. Crema L., Disappearance and New Sightings of Restrictive Interpretation(s), 21(3) European Journal of International Law 681 (2010).
  12. De Santis di Nicola F., Principle of Subsidiarity and ‘Embeddedness’ of the European Convention on Human Rights in the Field of the Reasonable-Time Requirement: The Italian Case, 18(1) Jurisprudence (2011).
  13. Drzewicki K., Sprawa Kudła v. Poland z 2000 r. Istota przewlekłości postępowań sądowych [Kudla v. Poland case of 2000: The essence of the excessive lenght of judicial proceedings], [in:] E.H. Morawska (ed.), Polska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka. Sprawy wiodące: sprawa Kudła przeciwko Polsce z 2000 r., C.H. Beck, Warszawa: 2019.
  14. ECHR judgement of 1 April 2014 in the case Luli and Others v. Albania (app. nos. 64480/09, 64482/09, 12874/10).
  15. ECHR judgement of 1 March 2005 in the case Charzyński v. Poland (app. no. 15212/03).
  16. ECHR judgement of 1 March 2005 in the case Michalak v. Poland (app. no. 24549/03).
  17. ECHR judgement of 10 April 2008 in the case Wassermanv. Russia (no. 2) (app. no. 21071/05).
  18. ECHR judgement of 10 September 2010 in the case Mc Farlane v. Ireland (app. no. 31333/06).
  19. ECHR judgement of 11 December 2008 in the case Muminov v. Russia (app. no. 42502/06).
  20. ECHR judgement of 11 January 2018 in the case Kiril Ivanov v.Bulgaria (app. no. 17599/07).
  21. ECHR judgement of 11 October 2005 in the case Majewski v. Poland (app. no.52690/99).
  22. ECHR judgement of 12 June 2012 in the case Istvan and Istvanova v. Slovakia (app. no. 30189/07).
  23. ECHR judgement of 12 March 2014 in the case Kurić and Others v. Slovenia (app. no.26828/06).
  24. ECHR judgement of 12 November 2002 in the case Zvolský and Zvolská v. the Czech Republic (app. no. 46129/99).
  25. ECHR judgement of 12 November 2008 in the case Demir and Baykara v. Turkey (app. no. 34503/97).
  26. ECHR judgement of 13 April 2017 in the case Tagayeva and Others v. Russia (app. nos. 26562/07 et al.).
  27. ECHR judgement of 13 January 2009 in the case Gorkiewicz v. Poland (app. no. 41663/04).
  28. ECHR judgement of 13 June 1979 in the case Marckx v. Belgium (app. no. 6833/74).
  29. ECHR judgement of 13 June 2019 in the case Jarmuż v. Poland (app. no. 63696/12).
  30. ECHR judgement of 14 June 2005 in the case Krasuski v. Poland (app. no. 61444/00).
  31. ECHR judgement of 14 October 2003 in the case D.M. v. Poland (app. no. 13557/02).
  32. ECHR judgement of 16 September 1996 in the case Akdivar and Others v. Turkey (app. no. 21893/93).
  33. ECHR judgement of 17 January 2012 in the case Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the UK (app. no. 8139/09).
  34. ECHR judgement of 17 January 2012 in the case Stanev v. Bulgaria (app. no. 36760/06).
  35. ECHR judgement of 17 May 2005 in the case of Horvathova v. Slovakia (app. no. 74456/01).
  36. ECHR judgement of 17 September 2013 in the case De Bruin v. the Netherlands (app. no. 9765/09).
  37. ECHR judgement of 18 December 1996 in the case Aksoy v. Turkey (app. no. 21987/93).
  38. ECHR judgement of 18 February 1999 in the case Matthews v. the UK (app. no. 24833/94).
  39. ECHR judgement of 18 February 2016 in the case A.K. v. Liechtenstein (no. 2) (app. no. 10722/13).
  40. ECHR judgement of 18 October 2005 in the case Kołodziej v. Poland (app. no. 47995/99).
  41. ECHR judgement of 19 December 1989 n the case Kamasinski v. Austria (app. no. 9783/82).
  42. ECHR judgement of 19 March 1991 in the case Cardot v. France (app. no. 11069/84).
  43. ECHR judgement of 19 October 2010 in the case Bazjaks v. Latvia (app. no. 71572/01).
  44. ECHR judgement of 2 February 2006 in the case Szablińska v. Poland (app. no. 52462/99).
  45. ECHR judgement of 2 October 2018 in the case Tsakoyevy v. Russia (app. no. 16397/07).
  46. ECHR judgement of 20 July 2010 in the case A. v. the Netherlands (app. no. 4900/06).
  47. ECHR judgement of 20 June 2019 in the case of Chiarello v. Germany (497/17).
  48. ECHR judgement of 20 March 2018 in the case Igranov and Others v. Russia (app. nos. 42399/13, 24051/14, 36747/14).
  49. ECHR judgement of 21 February 1990 in the case Powell and Rayner v. the UK (app. no. 9310/81).
  50. ECHR judgement of 21 September 2010 in the case Kay and Others v. the UK (app. no. 37341/06).
  51. ECHR judgement of 22 April 2008 in the case Stefan Kozlowski v. Poland (app. no. 30072/04).
  52. ECHR judgement of 22 January 2009 in the case Borzhonov v. Russia (app. no. 18274/04).
  53. ECHR judgement of 23 August 1994 in the case Hokkanen v. Finland (app. no. 19823/92).
  54. ECHR judgement of 23 March 1995 in the case Loizidou v. Turkey (app. no. 15318/89).
  55. ECHR judgement of 24 August 1989 in the case H. v. France (app. no. 10073/82).
  56. ECHR judgement of 24 February 2009 in the case Abramiuc v. Romania (app. no. 37411/02).
  57. ECHR judgement of 25 April 1978 in the case of Tyrer v. the UK (app. no. 5856/72).
  58. ECHR judgement of 25 January 2000 in the case Giuseppe Tripodi v. Italy (app. no. 40946/98).
  59. ECHR judgement of 25 June 2019 in the case Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania (app. no. 41720/13).
  60. ECHR judgement of 25 March 1983 in the case Silver and Others v. the UK (app. nos.5947/72).
  61. ECHR judgement of 25 September 2018 in the case Adam v. Romania (app. no. 30474/15).
  62. ECHR judgement of 26 February 2019 in the case Amrahov v. Armenia (app. no.49169/16).
  63. ECHR judgement of 26 July 2005 in the case Siliadin v. France (app. no. 73316/01).
  64. ECHR judgement of 26 March 2015 in the cases of: Zhebrailova and Others v. Russia (app. no. 40166/07).
  65. ECHR judgement of 26 March 2019 in the case Haghilo v. Cyprus (app. no. 47920/12).
  66. ECHR judgement of 26 March 2019 in the case Rudzis v. Poland (app. no. 60347/10).
  67. ECHR judgement of 26 March 2020 in the case Raspopović and Others v. Montenegro (app. nos. 58942/11, 14361/13, 71006/13).
  68. ECHR judgement of 26 November 2013 in the case Vlad and Others v. Romania (app. nos. 40756/06).
  69. ECHR judgement of 26 October 2000 in the case Kudła v. Poland (app. no. 30210/96).
  70. ECHR judgement of 27 April 1988 in the case Boyle and Rice v. the UK (app. nos.9659/82, 9658/82).
  71. ECHR judgement of 27 February 1992 in the case Ruotolo v. Italy (app. no. 12460/86).
  72. ECHR judgement of 27 June 1968 in the case Wemhoff v. Germany (app. no. 2122/64).
  73. ECHR judgement of 27 June 2019 in the case Cosmos Maritime Trading and Shipping Agency v. Ukraine (app. no. 53427/09).
  74. ECHR judgement of 27 November 1992 in the case Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2) (app. no. 13441/87).
  75. ECHR judgement of 27 November 2003 in the case Henaf v. France (app. no. 65436/01).
  76. ECHR judgement of 28 august 2018 in the case Alikhanovyv. Russia (app. no. 17054/06).
  77. ECHR judgement of 28 June 2018 in the case G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others v. Italy (app. no. 1828/06 34163/07 19029/11).
  78. ECHR judgement of 28 May 2019 in the case Liblik and Others v. Estonia (app. nos. 173/15).
  79. ECHR judgement of 28 November 1997 in Mentes and Others v. Turkey (app. no. 23186/94).
  80. ECHR judgement of 28 September 1999 in the case Civet v. France (app. no.29340/95).
  81. ECHR judgement of 28 September 2010 in the cases of Mangouras v. Spain (app. no. 12050/04).
  82. ECHR judgement of 29 March 2006 in the case Cocchiarella v. Italy (app. no.64886/01).
  83. ECHR judgement of 29 March 2006 in the case Scordino v. Italy (app. no. 36813/97).
  84. ECHR judgement of 3 July 2018 in the case Voynov v. Russia (app. no. 39747/10).
  85. ECHR judgement of 3 June 2003 in the case Futro v. Poland (app. no. 51832/99).
  86. ECHR judgement of 3 May 2018 in the case Voynov v. Russia (app. no. 39747/10).
  87. ECHR judgement of 31 August 2018 in the case Engelhardt v. Slovakia (app. no. 12085/16).
  88. ECHR judgement of 31 January 2018 in the case Balogh and Others v. Slovakia (app. no. 35142/15).
  89. ECHR judgement of 31 January 2019 in the case FIL LLC v. Armenia (app. no. 18526/13).
  90. ECHR judgement of 31 May 2018 in the case Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania (app. no. 46454/11).
  91. ECHR judgement of 4 December 2018 in the case Bacciocchi v. San Marino (app. no. 23327/16).
  92. ECHR judgement of 4 February 2005 in the case Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey (46827/99, 46951/99).
  93. ECHR judgement of 4 January 2005 in the case Pentiacova and Others v. Moldovia (app. no. 14462/03).
  94. ECHR judgement of 4 January 2008 in the case Olędzki v. Poland (app. no. 3715/03).
  95. ECHR judgement of 4 March 1991 in the case Chrysostomos, Papachrysostomou and Loizidou v. Turkey (app. nos. 15299/89, 15300/89 and 15318/89), 68 European Commission on Human Rights. Decisions & Reports (1991).
  96. ECHR judgement of 4 May 2000 in the case Rotaru v. Romania (app. no.28341/95).
  97. ECHR judgement of 5 February 2002 in the case Čonka v. Belgium (app. no. 51564/99).
  98. ECHR judgement of 5 October 2006 in the case Marchenko v. Russia (app. no.29510/04).
  99. ECHR judgement of 6 September 1978 in the case Klass and Others v. Germany (app. no. 5029/71).
  100. ECHR judgement of 7 December 1976 in the case Handyside v. the UK (app. no. 5493/72).
  101. ECHR judgement of 7 December 1999 in the case Bouilly v. France (app. no. 38952/97).
  102. ECHR judgement of 7 July 1989 in the case Soering v. the UK (app. no. 14038/88).
  103. ECHR judgement of 7 July 2011 in the case of Stummer v. Austria (app. no. 37452/02).
  104. ECHR judgement of 7 July 2015 in the case Rutkowski and Others v. Poland (app. no. 72287/10).
  105. ECHR judgement of 8 April 2008 in the case Krawczak v.Poland (app. no. 40387/06).
  106. ECHR judgement of 8 July 1987 in the case H. v. UK (app. no. 9580/81).
  107. ECHR judgement of 8 July 1987 in the case W. v. the UK (app. no. 9749/82).
  108. ECHR judgement of 8 July 1999 in the case Tanrikulu v. Turkey (app. no. 23763/94).
  109. ECHR judgement of 8 July 2003 in the case Sentges v. the Netherlands (app. no. 27677/02).
  110. ECHR judgement of 8 June 2006 in the case Sürmeli v. Germany (app. no.75529/01).
  111. ECHR judgement of 8 November 2018 in the case Wcisło and Cabaj v. Poland (app. nos. 49725/11, 79950/13).
  112. ECHR judgement of 9 July 2019 in the case Kislov v. Russia (app. no. 3598/10).
  113. ECHR judgement of 9 November 1999 in the case Debboub v. France (app. no.37786/97).
  114. ECHR judgement of 9 October 1979 in the case Airey v. Ireland (app. no. 6289/73).
  115. ECHR judgement of 9 October 2018 in the case Matei and Badea v. Romania (app. nos. 30357/15).
  116. EComHR decision of 14 December 1973 in the case East African Asians v. the UK (app. nos. 4403/70 et al.).
  117. Final resolution CM/ResDH (2015)248: Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 205 cases against Poland, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 December 2015 at the 1243rd meeting of the Ministers’ deputies, https://rm.coe.int/16805c25e6 [accessed: 13.07.2021].
  118. Fitzmaurice G., Treaty Interpretation and Other Treaty Points, 1951-1954, 33 British Yearbook Of International Law 2003 (1957).
  119. Fitzmaurice M., Merkouris P., Cannons of Treaty Interpretation, [in:] M. Fitzmaurice, O. Elias, P. Merkouris (eds.), Treaty Interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 30 Years on the Law of Treaties, Brill, Leiden: 2010.
  120. Flauss J.-F., Le droit à un recours effectif au secours de la règle du délai raisonnable. Un revirement de jurisprudence historique, 49 Revue Trimestrielle des Droits de l’Homme 169 (2002).
  121. Frankowska M., Prawo traktatów [Law of treaties], Wydawnictwo SGH, Warszawa: 1979.
  122. Frumer P., Le recours effectif devant une instance natio-nale pour dépassement du délai raisonnable. Un revirement dans la jurisprudence de la Cour Européenne des Droits de L’homme, 77 Journal des Tribunaux. Droit Européen 49 (2001).
  123. Garlicki L., Model Manner of the Judicial Implementation of the European Convention and the Jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court, Dysfunkcje polskiego prawa: jak poprawić system środków prawnych w Polsce?: IX Seminarium Warszawskie, 16 października 2015 r. / Dysfunctions of Polish law: how to improve the system of legal remedies in Poland? : IX Warsaw Seminar, 16 October 2015,, Ministerstwo Spraw Zagranicznych. Departament do Spraw Postępowań przed Międzynarodowymi Organami, Warszawa: 2016, pp. 186-198.
  124. Gerards J.H., Judicial Deliberations in the European Court of Human Rights, [in:] N. Huls, M. Adams, J. Bomhoff (eds.), The Legitimacy of Highest Courts’ Rulings, Brill, The Hague: 2008.
  125. Gomien D., Harris D., Zwaak L., Law and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter, Council of Europe: 1999.
  126. Greer S., The European Convention on Human Rights: Achievements, Problems and Prospects, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 2006.
  127. Hampson F.J., The Concept of an “Arguable Claim” under Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 39(4) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 891 (1990).
  128. Harris D., O’Boyle M., Bates E., Buckley C., [in:] D. Harris, M. O’boyle, C. Warbrick (eds.), Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 2009.
  129. Helfer L.R., Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Embeddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights Regime, 19 European Journal of International Law 125 (2008).
  130. ICJ, Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, advisory opinion, 28 May 1951, International Court of Justice Report 1951.
  131. Jacot-Guillarmod O., Rights Related to Good Administration of Justice (Article 6), [in:] R. Macdonald, F. Matscher, H. Petzold (eds.), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht: 1993.
  132. Janis M.W., Kay R., Bradley A., European Human Rights Law: Text and Material, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 2000.
  133. Leach P., Taking a Case to the European Court of Human Rights, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 2005.
  134. Macdonald R.S.J., Matscher F., Petzold H., The European System for the Protection of Human Rights, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht: 1993.
  135. Merkouris P., Article 31 (3) (c) VCLT and the Principle of Systemic Integration: Normative Shadows in Plato’s Cave, Brill, Leiden: 2015.
  136. Merrills J.G., The Development of International Law by the European Court of Human Rights, Manchester University Press, Manchester: 1995.
  137. Morawska E.H., Polska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka. Sprawy wiodące: sprawa Kudła przeciwko Polsce z 2000 r. [Poland in front of the European Court of Human Rights. Leading cases: Kudła v. Poland of 2000],C.H. Beck, Warszawa: 2019.
  138. Morawska E.H., Zobowiązania pozytywne państw-stron Konwencji o Ochronie Praw Człowieka i Podstawowych Wolności [Positive obligations of states parties to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms], UKSW University Press, Warszawa: 2016.
  139. Mowbray A., The Creativity of the European Court of Human Rights, 5(1) Human Rights Law Journal 57 (2005).
  140. Ovey C., White R.C.A., Jacobs F.G. (eds.), The European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 2014.
  141. Petzold H., The Convention and the Principle of Subsidiarity, [in:] R. Macdonald, F. Matscher, H. Petzold (eds.), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht: 1993.
  142. Pisillo Mazzeschi R., The Due Diligence Rule and the Nature of the International Responsibility of States, 35 German Yearbook of International Law 9 (1992).
  143. Protocol no. 15 amending the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, European Treaty Series no. 213.
  144. Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, European Treaty Series no. 9.
  145. Randelzhofer S., Tomuschat C., State Responsibility and the Reparation in Instance of Grave Violations of Human Rights, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague: 1999.
  146. Raymond J., A Contribution to the Interpretation of Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 5 Human Rights Review 161 (1980).
  147. Rietiker D., The Principle of “Effectiveness” in the Recent Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Its Different Dimensions and its Consistency with Public International Law – No Need for the Concept of Treaty Sui Generis, 79(2) Nordic Journal of International Law 245 (2010).
  148. Schokkenbroek J., The Basis, Nature and Application of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights, 19 Human Rights Law Journal 30 (1998).
  149. Shaw M.N., Prawo międzynarodowe [International law], Książka i Wiedza, Warszawa: 2008.
  150. Shelton D., Remedies in International Human Rights Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 2006.
  151. Shelton D., Subsidiarity, Democracy and Human Rights, [in:] D. Gomien (ed.), Broadening the Frontiers of Human Rights: Essays in Honour of Asjbørn Eide, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 1993.
  152. Statute of the Council of Europe, London 5.05.1949, European Treaty Series no. 1.
  153. Sudre F., Droit européen et international des droits de l’homme, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris: 2006.
  154. The Civil Code, Dz.U. 2019, item 1145 (consolidated text).
  155. The Copenhagen declaration on the reform of the European Convention on Human rights sys-tem. it has been agreed by the 47 Member states of the Council of Europe on 13 April 2018, https://bit.ly/3e2dawE [accessed 30.06.2020].
  156. Tulkens F., The Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time: Problems and Solutions, [in:] Can Excessive Length of Proceedings Be Remedied?, Venice Commission, Strasbourg: 2007.
  157. Tumay M., The Subsidiary Protection of European Convention on Human Rights, https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/suhfd/issue/26643/281189 [accessed: 30.06.2020].
  158. Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki [Act on Complaint on Infringement of a Party’s Right to Examine a Case in Court Proceedings without Unreasonable Delay], Dz.U. 2018, item 75 (consolidated text).
  159. Van Dijk P., Van Hoof F. (eds.), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Intersentia, Antwerpen: 1998.
  160. White R.C.A., Ovey C., Jacobs F.G., White & Ovey, The European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford University Press, Oxford:2010.
  161. Wyrozumska A., Umowy międzynarodowe. Teoria i praktyka [International agreements: theory and practice], PWN, Warszawa: 2006.
  162. Yassen M.K., L’interprétation des traités d’après la Convention de Vienne sur le droit des Traités, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht: 1976.

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.