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 >>
PIELASA v. POLAND - 66463/01 [2007] ECHR 94 (30 January 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/94.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 94
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF PIELASA v. POLAND
(Application
no. 66463/01)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30
January 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 Pielasa v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,
Mr G.
Bonello,
Mr K. Traja,
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 9 January 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 66463/01) 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 Irena
Pielasa (“the applicant”), on 22 April 1999.
The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
On
19 December 2005 the
Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government.
Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on
the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Mińsk Mazowiecki,
Poland.
The
investigation against the applicant started on 30 December 1992.
On
31 August 1993 the Mińsk Mazowiecki District Prosecutor
(Prokurator Rejonowy) lodged a bill of indictment against the
applicant and another person with the Mińsk Mazowiecki District
Court (Sąd Rejonowy). She was indicted on a charge of
fraud.
The
first hearing was scheduled for 18 May 1994. Subsequently the court
held 5 hearings at intervals ranging from 1 to 9 months. They were
adjourned due to the absence of the co-accused or her counsel.
At
a hearing on 14 January 1997 the court returned the case to the
prosecutor for further investigation.
On
27 June 1997 the prosecutor lodged a new bill of indictment with the
District Court.
The
court held hearings on 25 March, 21 May, 19 June and 8 September
1998.
On
11 September 1998 the court acquitted the applicant.
On
12 November 1998 the Mińsk Mazowiecki District Prosecutor
appealed against the first-instance judgment.
At
a hearing on 29 January 1999 before the Siedlce Regional Court (Sąd
Okręgowy) the prosecutor withdrew his appeal. In
consequence, the court decided not to examine it.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
The
relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the
excessive length of judicial proceedings 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 ... any criminal charge
against him, 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 31 August 1993 and
ended on 29 January 1999. It thus lasted 5 years and 5 months, for
two 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
the damage resulting from the excessive length of proceedings before
Polish courts, under section 16 of the 2004 Act read in conjunction
with Article 417 of the Civil Code.
However, the Court has already 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; (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 29 January 1999,
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.
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 (see, among
many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France
[GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II)
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.
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 50,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in respect of pecuniary
and non-pecuniary damage.
The Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
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, the Court considers that the applicant has suffered
non-pecuniary damage – such as distress resulting from the
protracted length of the proceedings – which is not
sufficiently compensated by the finding of a violation of the
Convention. Considering the circumstances of the case and making its
assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR
3,500 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also claimed PLN 3,000 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts without providing any substantiation.
The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
The
Court reiterates that only legal costs and expenses found to have
been actually and necessarily incurred and which are reasonable as to
quantum are recoverable under Article 41 of the Convention (see,
among other authorities, Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no.
31195/96, § 79, ECHR 1999-II). In the present case, the Court
notes that she has not produced any evidence supporting his claim as
required by Rule 60 § 2 of the Rules of Court. Accordingly, it
makes no award under this head.
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
(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 3,500
(three thousand five hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage to be converted into the national currency at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be
chargeable;
(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 30 January 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
