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 LUDWICZAK v. POLAND
(Application
no. 31748/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16
December 2008
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 Ludwiczak v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas
Bratza,
President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Giovanni
Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Ledi
Bianku,
Nebojša
Vučinić,
judges,
and
Lawrence Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 25 November 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 31748/06) 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 Eugeniusz
Ludwiczak (“the applicant”), on 17 July 2006.
- The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
- On
13 September 2007 the
President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on
the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time
(Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Ostrów Mazowiecka.
A. Main proceedings
- On
9 November 1992 the applicant lodged with the Ostrów
Mazowiecka District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a claim for
payment against his ex-employer, a construction company.
- On
the same day the case file was sent to the Warszawa District Court
which was competent to deal with the subject-matter.
- The
first hearing was scheduled for 22 February 1993. It did not take
place because on 21 December 1992 the Warszawa District Court stayed
the proceedings due to the fact that on 3 December 1992 winding-up
proceedings had been instituted against the defendant.
- On
5 April 1994 the applicant's claim was entered on the list of claims
(lista wierzytelności).
- On
27 May 1994 the Warszawa District Court refused to resume
the proceedings.
- On
18 September 2000 the Warszawa District Court was informed that the
winding-up proceedings had been discontinued.
- The
proceedings were resumed on 6 April 2001. On the same day the case
was joined to similar claims lodged against the defendant, and
registered under a new reference number. The court adjourned the
trial until 1 February 2002.
- It
appears that between the date when the proceedings were resumed and
the day on which the first-instance judgment was given, no hearing
took place. The trial was adjourned 11 times on procedural grounds,
such as, for example, the appointment of the defendant's curator then
its liquidator, and the need to supplement the evidence and to
appoint an expert.
- On
24 July 2006 the Warszawa District Court, following the applicant's
motion, appointed a lawyer for the applicant.
- On
31 October 2006 the Warszawa District Court gave judgment and
discontinued the proceedings in respect of the applicant.
- On
18 December 2006 the applicant's lawyer lodged an appeal. It was
rejected by the Warszawa District Court on 9 February 2007
on procedural grounds, i.e. failure to pay the so-called “basic
court fee” (opłata podstawowa).
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
- On 6 December 2006 the applicant
lodged with the Warszawa Regional Court (Sąd
Okręgowy) a complaint under
section 5 of 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”) which entered into force on 17 September
2004. The applicant sought a ruling declaring that the length of the
proceedings before the Warszawa District Court had been excessive.
- On 25 January 2007 the Warszawa
Regional Court dismissed his complaint. The court examined the course
of the impugned proceedings and held that there had been no delays
for which the Warszawa District Court could be held responsible,
although it admitted that the proceedings had been lengthy.
- On 26 February 2007 the Warszawa Regional Court
rejected the applicant's appeal against the decision of 25
January 2007 as inadmissible in law.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- The
relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the
excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the
applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are stated in the Court's
decisions in the cases of Charzyński v. Poland no.
15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V and Ratajczyk
v. Poland no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII and the judgment in
the case of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§
34-46, ECHR 2005-V.
THE LAW
I. THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THE APPLICATION
UNDER ARTICLE 37 OF THE CONVENTION
- On
22 April 2008 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration
similar to that in the case Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary
objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, ECHR 2003-VI) and informed
the Court that they were ready to accept that there had been a
violation of the applicant's rights under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention as a result of the unreasonable length of the proceedings
in which the applicant had been involved. In respect of non-pecuniary
damage, the Government proposed to award the applicant PLN 20,000
(the equivalent of approx. EUR 5,900). The Government invited the
Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of
the Convention.
- The
applicant did not agree with the Government's proposal and requested
the Court to continue the examination of the case. He maintained that
the amount offered was too low.
- The
Court observes that, as it has already held on many occasions, it may
be appropriate under certain circumstances to strike out
an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention
on the basis of a unilateral declaration by the respondent
Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of
the case to be continued. It will depend on the particular
circumstances whether the unilateral declaration offers a sufficient
basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the
Convention and its Protocols does not require the Court to continue
its examination of the case (see Tahsin Acar, cited
above, § 75; and Melnic v. Moldova,
no. 6923/03, § 22, 14 November 2006).
- According to the Court's case-law, the amount
proposed in a unilateral declaration may be considered a
sufficient basis for striking out an application or part thereof. The
Court will have regard in this connection to the compatibility of the
amount with its own awards in similar length of proceedings cases,
bearing in mind the principles which it has developed for determining
victim status and for assessing the amount of non-pecuniary
compensation to be awarded where it has found a breach of the
reasonable time requirement (see Cocchiarella v. Italy
[GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 85 107, ECHR
2006 ...; Scordino v. Italy (no.1) [GC], no. 36813/97,
§§ 193-215, ECHR-2006-...; and Dubjakova v. Slovakia
(dec.), no. 67299/01, 10 October 2004).
- On
the facts and for the reasons set out above, in particular the amount
of compensation proposed, the Court finds that the Government have
failed to provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect
for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols
does not require it to continue its examination of the case
(see, conversely, Spółka z o.o. WAZA v.
Poland (striking out), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007).
- This
being so, the Court rejects the Government's request to strike the
application out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the
Convention and will accordingly pursue its examination of the
admissibility and merits of the case.
II. 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 refrained from taking a position on
the merits of the applicant's complaint.
- The
Court notes that the proceedings commenced on 9 November 1992.
However, the period to be taken into consideration began only on
1 May 1993, when the recognition by Poland of the right
of individual petition took effect. Nevertheless, in assessing
the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date,
account must be taken of the state of proceedings at the time.
The
period in question ended on 9 February 2007. It thus lasted thirteen
years, nine months and thirteen days at one court instance.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court 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 applicant and the relevant authorities and
what was at stake for the applicant 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.
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.
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 9,206 US dollars (USD) in
respect of pecuniary damage and 20,000 euros (EUR) 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, and having regard to the fact that the
proceedings were stayed for almost eight years due to objective
reasons, it awards the applicant EUR 9,300 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not make any claim for costs and expenses involved in
the 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
- Rejects the Government's request to strike the
application out of its list of cases;
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there had 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 9,300 (nine thousand three hundred euros) in respect
of non pecuniary damage, to be
converted into Polish zlotys at the rate applicable at the date
of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(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 16 December 2008,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas
Bratza
Registrar President
