Fourteen symposia on early/lower vertebrates have taken place over the last 50 years, usually at about four year

intervals. An average 60 participants have taken part at these symposia, with over one hundred occasionally. The

results of the symposia have been published in proceedings. The symposia started honoring E. A:son Stensiö and

E. Jarvik. Honors were taken up at the 11th symposium in Uppsala again. Since the 13th symposium a Stensiö

award is also given to young researchers in the field.

According to a widespread view, reviews in science are an instrument for the selection of ideas and people. The article analyzes the gatekeeping role of habilitation proceedings in Polish sociology, taking into account three main areas: (1) the power held in the field of sociology by individual and institutional selectors, (2) statistics on the results of selection, and (3) the fate of academics rejected in the gatekeeping process. It has been found that (1) in Polish sociology there are leading institutions that play the largest role in awarding habilitation degrees, but unlike in other disciplines, there is no phenomenon of domination in the field of review by specific scholars. (2) In the proceedings from 2013–2019, 12.5% of the proceedings ended with a refusal to grant the degree. In the set, no proceedings with a controversial outcome were found (e.g., conferring a degree with a preponderance of negative reviews or vice versa). In the examination of the review results, no trend of systematic gender discrimination was found. (3) 32% of those who were denied a degree left the scientific community, while 63% are still working at the same university as before the denial.

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.