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 >>
PIATKIEWICZ v. POLAND - 39958/02 [2007] ECHR 829 (16 October 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/829.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 829
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF PIĄTKIEWICZ v. POLAND
(Application
no. 39958/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 October 2007
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 Piątkiewicz v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,
Mr J. Casadevall,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr L. Garlicki,
Ms L. Mijović,
Mr J. Šikuta,
Mrs P. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 25 September 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 39958/02) 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 Dariusz
Piątkiewicz (“the applicant”), on 14 June 2000.
The
Polish Government were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
On
1 September 2006 the President of the Fourth Section of the Court
decided to communicate the application 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.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Łódź.
1. Main proceedings - civil proceedings for payment
On
22 May 1991 the applicant filed a claim for payment against his
former employer with the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd
Wojewódzki). On 2 December 1991 the court gave
judgment. Upon the applicant's appeal the Łódź Court
of Appeal (Sąd Apelacjny) remitted the case on 22 April
1992.
On
19 August 1993 the Regional Court held the first hearing in the case.
Subsequently, hearings were held on 19 October 1993, 10 March and 26
April 1994.
In
1995 the court held two hearings, on 14 February and 13 June, and
ordered the preparation of an expert opinion.
On
15 March 1996 the Łódź Regional Court gave a
preliminary judgment.
On
14 August 1996 the Łódź Court of Appeal quashed the
judgment and remitted the case.
On
16 June and 14 October 1997 the Regional Court held further hearings.
On 28 October 1997 the Łódź Regional Court gave
judgment. It was upheld by the Łódź Court of Appeal
on 10 March 1998.
On
9 June 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal. On 16 December
1999 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) held one
hearing and gave judgment in which it dismissed the cassation appeal.
2. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
On
16 March 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint under section 18 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”). On
10 May 2005 the Łódź Court of Appeal rejected the
appeal as it was inadmissible in law.
On
13 June 2005 the applicant lodged a claim for damages under section
16 of the 2004 Act read in conjunction with Article 417 of the Civil
Code. He sought compensation for the alleged mistakes in the
examination of his claims and for the protracted length of the
proceedings.
On 30
September 2005 the Łódź Regional Court dismissed the
claim. His appeal against the judgment was dismissed by the Łódź
Court of Appeal on 18 May 2006. The applicant submitted that he had
not lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. The Government
maintained that such an appeal was pending before the Supreme Court.
3. Proceedings for reinstatement
In
his letter of 30 March 2003 the applicant submitted additional
complaints about another set of civil proceedings for reinstatement.
On
29 June 1999 the applicant appealed to the Olsztyn District Court
against a decision to dismiss him from work.
On
19 October 2000 the Olsztyn District Court gave judgment. On
15 January 2001 the Olsztyn Regional Court upheld the
first-instance judgment. The applicant filed a cassation appeal. On
27 February 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's cassation
appeal for failure to comply with procedural requirements.
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 ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNREASONABLE LENGTH OF THE CIVIL
PROCEEDINGS FOR PAYMENT
The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings for payment
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
Court notes that the proceedings commenced on 22 May 1991. 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 16 December 1999. It thus lasted 6 years,
7 months and 17 days for three levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
The
Government raised a preliminary objection that the applicant had not
exhausted domestic remedies available to him under Polish law, as
required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They maintained
that from 17 September 2004, the date of entry into force of the
2004 Act, the applicant had a possibility of seeking compensation for
damage resulting from the excessive length of proceedings before the
Polish courts, under section 16 of the 2004 Act read in conjunction
with Article 417 of the Civil Code. Moreover, the applicant had
lodged such a civil claim which had been examined on the merits at
two instances and is pending before the Supreme Court.
The
applicant contested that argument and submitted that he had exhausted
all available domestic remedies. In addition he argued that a claim
for compensation under Article 417 of the Civil Code was not an
effective remedy; nevertheless, he had attempted to make use of it,
to no avail.
The Court has already examined whether after
18 December 2001 and prior to the entry into force of the 2004
Act a compensation claim in tort as provided for by Polish civil law
was an effective remedy in respect of complaints about the length of
proceedings. It held that no persuasive arguments had been adduced to
show that Article 417 of the Civil Code could at that time be relied
on for the purpose of seeking compensation for excessive length of
proceedings or that such action offered reasonable prospects of
success (see Skawińska
v Poland (dec.), no. 42096/98, 4 March 2003, and
Malasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§
32-34, 14 October 2003). Subsequently, and following the entry into
force of the 2004 Act, the Court has held that the civil action
relied on by the Government cannot be regarded as an effective remedy
with a sufficient degree of certainty 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, cited above; and
Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, § 45,
30 May 2006, Drabicki v. Poland, no. 15464/02,
§ 17, 14 November 2006).
The
present case belongs to this group of applications as the proceedings
at issue ended on 16 December 1999, which is more than three years
before the 2004 Act came into force. The Court reiterates that the
only remedies which Article 35 of the Convention requires to be
exhausted are those that relate to the breaches alleged and at the
same time are available and sufficient. In view of the above
findings, and since the applicant's attempt to obtain redress at the
national level by making use of a remedy that is not regarded by the
Court as effective in similar cases, the Court considers that the
Government's plea of inadmissibility on the ground of non exhaustion
of domestic remedies must be dismissed.
The
Government further submitted that the applicant had withheld
information from the Court as he had failed to inform it that he had
lodged civil proceedings for compensation under Article 417 of the
Civil Code. Thus, his application to the Court constituted an abuse
of the right of individual application under Article 35 § 3
of the Convention.
The
applicant did not comment on the Government's objection.
The
Court observes that the applicant in his letter of 15 November
2004 did inform the Registry of the Court about his intention to make
use of the remedies introduced by the 2004 Act. In view of this, and
given the general nature of the Government's argument, the Court
finds no grounds whatsoever for concluding that the applicant's
application to the Court is an abuse of the right of individual
application.
The
Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It also
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 reiterates that special diligence is
necessary in employment disputes (Ruotolo v. Italy, judgment
of 27 February 1992, Series A no. 230 D, p. 39, § 17).
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. In
particular, the Court notes that no hearing was held during a
10-month period between April 1994 and February 1995 as well as
during a period of 18 months when the case was with the Supreme
Court. 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 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNFAIRNESS OF THE CIVIL PROCEEDINGS FOR
PAYMENT
The
applicant first complained that the proceedings in his case were
unfair. In particular, he alleged errors of fact and law committed by
the courts, which, moreover, had incorrectly assessed the evidence.
He alleged a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which,
in its relevant part, reads:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by
[a] ... tribunal...”
However,
the Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the Convention,
its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by
the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not
its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed
by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed
rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while
Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing,
it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or
the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters
for regulation by national law and the national courts (see García
Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I,
with further references).
In
the present case the applicant did not allege any particular failure
to respect his right to a fair hearing on the part of the relevant
courts. Indeed, his complaints are limited to a challenge to the
result of the proceedings. Assessing the circumstances of the case as
a whole, the Court finds no indication that the impugned proceedings
were conducted unfairly.
It
follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded
and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and
4 of the Convention.
III. ALLEGED
VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION IN RESPECT OF THE
PROCEEDINGS FOR REINSTATEMENT
Lastly,
the applicant complained about unfairness and the unreasonable length
of the proceedings for reinstatement.
However,
pursuant to 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
Court notes that the proceedings in question ended with the Supreme
Court's judgment of 27 February 2002, thus more than six months
before 30 March 2003, the date on which this complaint was submitted
to the Court.
It follows that this part of the application has been introduced 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 almost 200,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in respect of
pecuniary damage and PLN 3,795,792 in respect of non pecuniary
damage.
The
Government contested the claims and considered them irrelevant and
exorbitant.
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 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect
of non pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also claimed PLN 2,125 for the costs and expenses incurred
before both the domestic courts and the Court.
The
Government contested the claims and submitted that only costs
actually incurred by the applicant before the Court should be taken
into consideration.
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 and considers it
reasonable to award the applicant, who was not represented before the
Court by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 100 for the proceedings before
the Court.
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 complaint concerning the excessive
length of the civil proceedings for payment 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 2,000 (two
thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 100 (one
hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses, 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 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 16 October 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
