BAILII
    British and Irish Legal Information Institute


    Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

    [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

    European Court of Human Rights

    You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> PIATKOWSKI v. POLAND - 5650/02 [2006] ECHR 872 (17 October 2006)
    URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2006/872.html
    Cite as: [2006] ECHR 872
    [New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]




    FOURTH SECTION







    CASE OF PIĄTKOWSKI v. POLAND


    (Application no. 5650/02)









    JUDGMENT




    STRASBOURG



    17 October 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 Piątkowski 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 Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,

    Having deliberated in private on 26 September 2006,

    Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

    PROCEDURE

  1. The case originated in an application (no. 5650/02) 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 Sylwester Piątkowski (“the applicant”), on 5 June 2001.

  2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

  3. On 26 August 2005 the President of the Fourth Section decided to communicate the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of criminal 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.

    4. THE FACTS

    I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

  4. The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Koluszki, Poland.

  5. Between 1991 and 1993 the applicant was the Head of the Civic Gasification Committee of the “Łódzkie” housing co-operative (Społeczny Komitet Gazyfikacji “Os. Łódzkie”).

  6. In July 1995 the Board of the Koluszki Commune (Zarząd Miasta i Gminy) requested the prosecution service to initiate an investigation against the applicant for not returning documents concerning the Committee.

  7. On 16 October 1995 the applicant was charged with having hidden the documents.

  8. On 2 January 1996 the applicant was indicted before the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).

  9. On 9 May and 13 November 1996 the District Court held hearings. On the latter date it gave a judgment in which it found that the applicant had committed the offence. The trial court conditionally discontinued the proceedings. The applicant was given a term of probation of one year and ordered to pay PLN 300 to a charity. The applicant appealed.

  10. On 23 September 1997 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) held a hearing and on 25 September 1997 it dismissed the applicant’s appeal.

  11. In May 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).

  12. On 9 January 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded.

    13. II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

  13. Articles 417 et seq. of the Civil Code (Kodeks cywilny) provide for the State’s liability in tort.

    14. In the version applicable until 1 September 2004, Article 417 § 1, which lays down a general rule, read as follows:

    “1.  The State Treasury shall be liable for damage caused by a State official in the performance of the duties entrusted to him.”

  14. Article 442 of the Civil Code sets out limitation periods in respect of various claims based on tort. That provision applies to situations covered by Article 417 of the Civil Code. Article 442, in so far as relevant, reads:

    15. “1.  A claim for compensation for damage caused by a tort shall lapse three years following the date on which the claimant learned of the damage and of the persons liable for it. However, the claim shall in any case lapse ten years following the date on which the event causing the damage occurred.”

  15. 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.

    16. 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

  16. The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

    17. “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

  17. The Government contested that argument.

  18. The period to be taken into consideration began on 16 October 1995 and ended on 9 January 2001. It thus lasted 5 years and almost 3 months for three levels of jurisdiction.

    19. A.  Admissibility

  19. 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.

  20. 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 9 January 2001, which is more than three years before the 2004 Act had come into force. It follows that the Government’s plea of inadmissibility on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must be dismissed.

  21. 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.

    22. B.  Merits

  22. 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 (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II)

  23. 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 Pélissier and Sassi, 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 can accept 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). Nevertheless, in the present case the applicant’s cassation appeal lay dormant in the Supreme Court for thirty-two months which constitutes an unreasonable delay (see Domańska v Poland, no. 74073/01, 25 May 2004, § 32).

  24. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court finds that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

    25. 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

  25. The applicant further complained that the proceedings in his case were “unfair”.

  26. 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).

  27. The Court observes that the applicant does not allege any particular failure to respect his right to a fair hearing. Assessing the criminal proceedings in the applicant’s case as a whole, it finds no indication that they were unfairly conducted.

    28. 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

  28. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

    29. “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

  29. The applicant claimed 50,000 Polish zlotys in respect of non pecuniary damage.

  30. The Government asked the Court to rule that a finding of a violation would constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction. In the alternative, they invited the Court to make an award of just satisfaction on the basis of its case law in similar cases and national economic circumstances.

  31. The Court awards the applicant 1,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non pecuniary damage.

    32. B.  Costs and expenses

  32. The applicant also claimed PLN 9,800 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts.

  33. The Government contested the claim.

  34. 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.

    35. C.  Default interest

  35. 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.

    36. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

  36. Declares the complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;


  37. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;


    38. 3.  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 1,000 (one thousand 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;


  38. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

    39. Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 October 2006, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

    T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza
    Registrar President



About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010