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 CIEŚLAK v. POLAND
(Application
no. 32098/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
3 June
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 Cieślak 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,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku, judges,
and
Lawrence Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 13 May 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 32098/05) 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, Ms Marianna
Cieślak (“the applicant”), on 10 August 2005.
- The
Polish Government were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
- On
27 September 2007 the
President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to give notice
of the application to the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of
the Convention, it was decided to rule on the admissibility and
merits of the application at the same time.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant, Ms Marianna Cieślak, is a Polish national who was
born in 1923 and lives in Bobolice.
A. Proceedings for expropriation and civil proceedings
for repossession
- The
applicant's mother-in-law died on 6 October 1975. During the
proceedings for division of inheritance, on 30 October 1980 the Mayor
of Warsaw's Wola District (Naczelnik Dzielnicy Warszawa Wola –
hereafter, “the Mayor”) expropriated part of the land
belonging to the applicant's family.
- On
22 February 1981 the applicant's husband inherited the plot of land
in Warsaw. On 17 August 1988, after his death, the applicant became
the co-owner of the land.
- The
applicant instituted proceedings for annulment of the Mayor's
decision. On 22 March 1991 the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny
Sąd Administracyjny) decided that the expropriation decision
had been taken in flagrant infringement of the law.
- On
29 February 1996 the Warsaw Governor's Office (Urząd
Wojewódzki) quashed the Mayor's decision and dismissed an
application by the Polish Allotment Association (Polski Związek
Działkowy) for expropriation of the land. The Association
appealed. On 20 January 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld
the Warsaw Governor's Office's decision.
- On
10 March 1995 the applicant and two other plaintiffs lodged with the
Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a claim for
repossession of the expropriated land. The case was transmitted to
the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).
- On
21 November 2000 the Regional Court gave a preliminary judgment
(wyrok wstępny). It decided that the property should be
returned, and the parties should retain possession of the land until
financial claims had been completed. The applicant appealed.
- On
18 January 2002 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny)
quashed the Regional Court's judgment on the right to retain
possession until the completion of financial claims.
- On
25 February 2004 the Regional Court gave judgment. It decided that
the property should be returned. The Polish Allotment Association
appealed.
- On
20 December 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. On 15
June 2006 it issued a writ of enforcement.
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
- On
22 January 2005 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw Court of Appeal
a complaint under the provisions of the 17 June 2004 Act on
complaints about a breach of the right to a fair 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.
- On 23 March 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed the
applicant's complaint. The court held that the 2004 Act had legal
effect from its date of entry into force. It found that during the
relevant part of the proceedings there had been no inactivity or
undue delay on the part of the domestic court. In that connection,
the court held that there had been no breach of the right to a fair
trial within a reasonable time in the period after 17 September 2004.
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. 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 10 March 1995 and
ended on 20 December 2005. It thus lasted ten years, nine months and
fourteen days for two levels of jurisdiction.
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). Furthermore, the Court
observes that, in dismissing the applicant's complaint that the
proceedings in her case had exceeded a reasonable time, the Court of
Appeal failed to apply standards which were in conformity with the
principles embodied in the Court's case law (see Majewski v.
Poland, no. 52690/99, § 36, 11 October 2005).
- 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.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO
THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant also complained that the length of the proceedings had
infringed her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possession, as
guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- The
Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above
and must therefore be declared admissible.
- However,
in view of the circumstances of the case and the conclusion reached
in paragraph 23 above, the Court considers it unnecessary to
determine also the complaint based on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(see Zanghì v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991,
Series A no. 194-C, p. 47, § 23).
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 43,306 Polish zlotys (“PLN” –
equivalent to 12,000 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage and
PLN 13,000 (EUR 3,650) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested those 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 EUR 3,650 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed 524,35 PLN (EUR 150) for the costs and
expenses incurred before the Court.
-
The Government contested the claim.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
considers that the sum claimed should be awarded in full.
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 application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds that it is not necessary to examine
separately the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to 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
according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
the following amounts, to be converted into Polish zlotys at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
3,650 (three thousand six hundred and fifty euros), plus any tax that
may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
150 (one hundred and fifty euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three
months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above
amounts 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 3 June 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
