FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF
ANDRZEJCZAK v. POLAND
(Application no.
28940/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 January 2013
This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Andrzejczak v. Poland,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as
a Committee composed of:
Päivi Hirvelä, President,
Ledi Bianku,
Paul Mahoney, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 December 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an
application (no. 28940/08) 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 Łucja Andrzejczak (“the applicant”), on 15 May 2008.
The Polish
Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent Mr J. Wołąsiewicz,
succeeded by Ms J. Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
On 30 August 2010
the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
On 23 January 2003 the applicant requested
the County Building Inspector to assess whether her neighbours had extended their
property lawfully. The construction works took place between 1969 and 1974.
After the proceedings which aimed to identify the parties to the dispute had
finished, the County Building Inspector commenced the proper proceedings on
21 January 2005.
On 8 November 2005 the County Building
Inspector discontinued the proceedings finding that all the construction works had
been conducted legally. The inspector relied on witnesses’ testimonies since
all the documents had gone missing. The Regional Building Inspector upheld the
decision on 7 April 2006.
In the meantime the applicant lodged a complaint
with the Wielkoposki Governor about inactivity of the County Building Inspector.
On 8 June 2006 the Wielkopolski Governor found that the 8 November
2005 decision had not been examined timeously.
The applicant applied for judicial review of the
Regional Building Inspector’s decision. On 6 June 2007 the Poznań Regional Administrative Court quashed both decisions stating that the evidence
gathered was not sufficient for reaching any conclusions.
On 15 June 2008 the applicant sent a letter
to the Regional Building Inspector pointing to the fact that the decision had
not been taken although over a year had elapsed since the court’s judgment and
complaining about the length of the proceedings before the County Building
Inspector. On 2 July 2008 the Regional Inspector advised the County Inspector on the need to deal with the case.
On 13 November 2008 the County Building
Inspector discontinued the proceedings. On 23 January the Regional
Building Inspector quashed the decision and remitted the case.
Finally on 30 November 2009 the County
Building Inspector discontinued the proceedings.
THE LAW
I. 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 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 23 January 2003 and ended on 30 November 2009. It thus lasted six
years and ten months for three levels of jurisdiction during which two
decisions were quashed and the case remitted twice.
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.
II. 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 for pecuniary damage
without indicating exact sums.
The Government contested the claim.
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 2,000 in
respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. 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
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant,
within three months, EUR 2,000 (two thousand 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 January 2013,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Päivi
Hirvelä
Deputy Registrar President
