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 WROŃSKI v. POLAND
(Application
no. 473/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 June
2009
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 Wroński 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
Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 2 June 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 473/07) 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 Mirosław
Wroński (“the applicant”), on 18 December 2006.
- The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
- On
29 April 2008 the
President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to communicate
the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings 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
Government submitted a unilateral declaration and invited the Court
to strike out the application, in accordance with Article 37 of the
Convention.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Gdynia.
A. Disciplinary proceedings against the applicant
- On
30 March 1993 the Chief of the Gdańsk Regional Police
Headquarters (Komenda Wojewódzka Policji) dismissed the
applicant from the police service (he was held accountable for
accepting bribes).
- On
14 May 1993 the Chief of the Principal Police Headquarters (Komenda
Główna Policji) upheld the decision.
B. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
- In
November 1992 the Gdynia prosecution authorities charged the
applicant, a serving police officer at the time, with numerous counts
of fraud.
- On
30 June 1993 a bill of indictment against the applicant and eleven
other suspects was lodged with the Gdynia District Court (Sąd
Rejonowy).
- The
applicant did not submit any information concerning the court's
hearings between July 1993 and January 2005.
- Two
hearings, scheduled on 1 February and 8 March 2005, were adjourned as
some of the suspects failed to appear.
- Two
hearings, scheduled on 12 April and 10 May 2005, were cancelled due
to the judge's illness.
- On
7 June 2005 the court severed the charges against the applicant and
four other accused.
- Subsequently,
the trial court held hearings on 12 and 26 July, 6 September,
12 October, 17 November and 12 December 2005, and 18 January, 15
February, 15 March, 19 April, 5 and 29 June and 19 July 2006.
- On
21 July 2006 the Gdynia District Court convicted the applicant as
charged and sentenced him to one year and six months' imprisonment
and a fine of 800 Polish zlotys (PLN).
- On
25 September 2006 the applicant appealed.
- On
11 December 2006 his appeal was dismissed by the Gdańsk Regional
Court (Sąd Okręgowy).
C. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
- On
2 October 2006 the applicant lodged 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”) and
asked for just satisfaction.
- On
13 November 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed his
complaint. It limited its examination of the length of proceedings
issue to the period after the entry into force of the 2004 Act and
stressed that the Act could not be applied to the protracted length
of court proceedings occurring before that date. Having analysed the
conduct of the District Court during the period after the entry into
force of the 2004 Act, the Regional Court found that there were no
delays for which the District Court could be held responsible.
Pointing to the complexity of the case and the voluminous
documentation gathered in the proceedings it held that the
proceedings had been conducted with due diligence and within a
reasonable time.
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
14 January 2009 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration
similar to that in the case of Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (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 PLN 18,000 to the applicant (the equivalent of
4,400 euros (EUR)). 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. He considered
that the amount proposed did not constitute sufficient just
satisfaction for the damage he had sustained and requested the Court
to continue the examination of the application.
- The
Court observes that, as it has already held on many occasions, it may
be appropriate under certain circumstances to strike out an
application or part of 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).
- As
to whether it would be appropriate to strike out the present
application on the basis of the unilateral declaration made by the
Government, the Court considers that the sum proposed in the
declaration in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered by the
applicant as a result of the alleged violation of the Convention does
not bear a reasonable relationship with the amounts awarded by the
Court in similar cases for non-pecuniary damage.
- On
the facts and for the reasons set out above, the Court finds that the
Government failed to submit a statement offering 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, by contrast, 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 this
part of the application out 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 ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNREASONABLE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS
- 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 ... any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
- The
Government refrained from submitting observations on the
admissibility and merits of the complaint.
- The
Court notes that the proceedings commenced in 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 11 December 2006. It thus lasted thirteen
years and seven months for two levels of jurisdiction (thirteen years
and some three months before the first-instance court).
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.
Furthermore, the Court considers that, in dismissing the applicant's
complaint that the proceedings in his case exceeded a reasonable
time, the Gdańsk Regional Court 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
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. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Further,
the applicant complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention,
that his dismissal from the police service has resulted in a breach
of the principle of presumption of innocence.
- Leaving aside the issue of
applicability of Article 6 of the Convention to the impugned
proceedings, the Court observesH
that pursuant tounder
Article 35 § 1 of the Convention:
“1. The
Court may only deal with the matter ... within a period of six months
from the date on which the final decision was taken... ”
- The final decision in the
disciplinary proceedings against the applicant was delivered on 14
May 1993, thus
more than six months before 18 December
2006, the date on which this complaint was submitted to the Court.
It follows that this part of the application
has been lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with
Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. 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 PLN 700,000 (equivalent to EUR 143,000) in respect
of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government submitted that the sum requested by the applicant was
exorbitant. Should the Court establish that there has been a
violation of the Convention, they requested that the amount of just
satisfaction be assessed on the basis of the case-law in similar
cases and national economic circumstances.
- 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 10,300 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 the list;
- 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 10,300 (ten
thousand three hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage plus
any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into the currency of
the respondent State 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 23 June 2009, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President
