BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF DRABICKI v. POLAND
(Application
no. 15464/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14
November 2006
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Drabicki v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Sir Nicolas
Bratza, President,
Mr J. Casadevall,
Mr G.
Bonello,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr L.
Garlicki,
Ms L. Mijović, judges,
and Mrs
F. Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 24 October 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 15464/02) against the
Republic of Poland lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by a Polish national, Mr Kazimierz
Drabicki (“the applicant”), on 8 October 2001.
- The
applicant was represented by his son, Mr J. Drabicki. The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs.
- On
28 November 2005
the President of the Fourth Section decided to
communicate the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of
proceedings to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29
§ 3 of the Convention, it was decided to examine the merits
of the application at the same time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Rzeszów.
- In
1992 the applicant, who was a pensioner, received from the Social
Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych)
a substantial amount of money (over 57,000,000 old Polish zlotys) by
way of adjustment of his pension.
- Subsequently,
the Social Security Board found that the sum had been awarded to the
applicant by mistake and started to deduct money from his pension.
The applicant instituted proceedings against the Board. According to
the applicant, in 1996 the Rzeszow Court of Appeal allowed his action
and found that the Board’s deductions had been illegal.
- On
28 July 1997 the Social Security Board instituted civil proceedings
against the applicant in the Rzeszów District Court (Sąd
Rejonowy) claiming the remaining sum of PLN 10,000.
- Between
7 November 1997 and 24 February 1998 the court held four
hearings.
- On
10 March 1998 the court gave judgment in which it allowed the
plaintiff’s action. The applicant appealed against the
judgment.
- On
9 June 1998 the Rzeszów Regional Court (Sąd
Wojewódzki) held a hearing at which it dismissed the
applicant’s appeal. On 6 August 1998 the applicant lodged
a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).
- On
11 April 2001, sitting in camera, the Supreme Court refused to
entertain the cassation appeal.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- On
17 September 2004 the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a
breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o
skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w
postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki)
(“the 2004 Act”) entered into force. It lays down various
legal means designed to counteract and/or redress the undue length of
judicial proceedings.
A
more detailed rendition of the relevant domestic law provisions is
set out in the Court’s judgment in Krasuski v. Poland,
no. 61444/00, §§ 34 46, ECHR 2005–...
(extracts) and in Charzyński v. Poland
(dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 12 23, ECHR
2005–....
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads
as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 28 July 1997 and
ended on 11 April 2001. It thus lasted over 3 years and 8 months for
3 levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court firstly notes that the Government raised a preliminary
objection that the applicant had not exhausted remedies available
under Polish law. They maintained that from 17 September 2004,
when the 2004 Act had come into force, the applicant had a
possibility of lodging a claim for compensation for damage suffered
due to the excessive length of proceedings with the Polish civil
courts under Article 417 of the Civil Code read together with
section 16 of the 2004 Act.
- However, the Court has already found that the civil
action relied on cannot be regarded with a sufficient degree of
certainty as an effective remedy in cases where the three-year
limitation period for the State’s liability in tort expired
before the entry into force of the 2004 Act on 17 September 2004
(see Ratajczyk v. Poland; (dec.), 11215/02, 31 May
2005, Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, § 45,
30 May 2006). The present case belongs to this group of
applications as the proceedings at issue ended on 11 April 2001,
which is more than three years before the 2004 Act came into force.
It follows that the Government’s plea of inadmissibility on the
ground of non exhaustion of domestic remedies must be dismissed.
- The
Government further submitted that the applicant’s litigation
was of vexatious nature and that his application to the Court
constituted an abuse of the right of individual application under
Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
- The
applicant considered the Government’s objection indecent.
- The
Court observes that the present case originated in a civil action
instituted by the Social Security Board against the applicant. In
view of this, and given the general nature of the Government’s
argument, the Court finds no grounds whatsoever for concluding that
the applicant’s application to the Court is an abuse of the
right of individual application.
- The
Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other
grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96,
§ 43, ECHR 2000 VII).
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the
present case (see Frydlender, cited above). Having examined
all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the
Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
The Court agrees that some delays in the procedure before the
Supreme Court could be explained by the fact that, at the material
time, the Supreme Court had to deal with an increased workload (see,
Kępa v. Poland (dec.), no. 43978/98,
30 September 2003). However, the Court reiterates that, as it
has repeatedly held, Article 6 § 1 imposes on the Contracting
States the duty to organise their judicial systems in such a way that
their courts can meet each of its requirements, including the
obligation to hear cases within a reasonable time (see, amongst many
other authorities, Muti v. Italy, judgment of 23 March
1994, Series A no. 281-C, p. 37, § 15 and Süssmann
v. Germany, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports
of Judgments and Decision 1996 IV, p. 1190, § 57).
The Court notes that, in the present case, the applicant’s
cassation appeal lay dormant in the Supreme Court for over thirty
months which constitutes an unreasonable delay (see Domańska
v. Poland, no. 74073/01, 25 May 2004, § 32).
- Having
regard to its case law on the subject, the Court considers that
in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and
failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNFAIRNESS OF THE PROCEEDINGS
- The
applicant further complained that the proceedings in his case were
“unfair”.
- However,
the Court reiterates that it is not called upon to deal with errors
of fact and law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in
so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by
the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC],
no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999 I).
- The
Court observes that the applicant does not allege any particular
failure to respect his right to a fair hearing. Assessing the civil
proceedings in the applicant’s case as a whole, it finds no
indication that they were unfairly conducted.
It
follows that this complaint is manifestly ill founded and must
be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3
and 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed over 40,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in respect of
pecuniary damage and PLN 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested these claims.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On
the other hand, it awards the applicant 1,200 euros (EUR) in respect
of non pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed PLN 2,800 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- According
to the Court’s case law, an applicant is entitled to
reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
rejects the claim for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 1,200 (one
thousand two hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus
any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into Polish zlotys at
the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 November 2006,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of
Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Nicolas Bratza
Deputy
Registrar President
