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 >> PIASKOWSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND - 35431/05 [2008] ECHR 569 (1 July 2008)
    URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/569.html
    Cite as: [2008] ECHR 569
    [New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]





    FOURTH SECTION







    CASE OF PIASKOWSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND


    (Application no. 35431/05)












    JUDGMENT



    STRASBOURG


    1 July 2008



    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 Piaskowski and Others v. Poland,

    The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

    Nicolas Bratza, President,
     Lech Garlicki,
     Ljiljana Mijović,
     David Thór Björgvinsson,
     Ján Šikuta,
     Ledi Bianku,
     Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
    and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

    Having deliberated in private on 10 June 2008,

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

    PROCEDURE

  1. The case originated in an application (no. 35431/05) 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 four Polish nationals, Mr Marian Piaskowski, Mrs Jolanta Piaskowska, Mr Jan Łuczyński and Mrs Anna Łuczyńska (“the applicants”), on 15 September 2005.

  2. The applicants were represented by Mr M. Widawski, a lawyer practising in Pabianice. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

  3. On 13 July 2007 the President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it was decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.

    4. THE FACTS

    I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

  4. The applicants were born in 1947, 1953, 1953 and 1953 respectively and live in Łódź.

    5. A.  Main proceedings

  5. On 7 December 2001 the Consumer Protection Association (Związek Obrony Konsumentów) acting on behalf of the applicants lodged a claim for payment with the Warszawa Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).

  6. In a letter of 22 May 2003 the applicants' legal adviser complained about the delay in the proceedings and asked for a hearing date to be fixed.

  7. On 15 December 2003 the court held the first hearing.

  8. From January to March 2003 the court held 2 hearings.

  9. On 10 February 2004 the Warszawa District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) declared the defendant insolvent. Consequently, at a hearing held on 4 March 2004 the trial court stayed the proceedings ex lege.

  10. The proceedings were resumed on 9 May 2007.

  11. On 11 May 2007 the Warszawa Regional Court discontinued the proceedings in the case.

    12. B.  Proceedings under the 2004 Act

  12. On 4 February 2005 the Consumer Protection Association acting on behalf of the applicants lodged a complaint with the Warszawa Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) 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”).

  13. The applicants sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Warszawa Regional Court had been excessive. They asked for an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. EUR 2,500).

  14. On 15 March 2005 the Warszawa Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint. The court found that the 2004 Act produced legal effects as from the date of entry into force (17 September 2004), its provisions applied retroactively to all proceedings in which delays had occurred before that date and had not yet been remedied. It acknowledged that there had been a delay at the initial stage of the proceedings but found that this situation had ceased to exist when the 2004 Act entered into force.

    15. II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

  15. 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.

    16. THE LAW

    I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

  16. The applicants 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:

    17. “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

  17. The Government did not submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint.

  18. The period to be taken into consideration began on 7 December 2001 and ended on 11 May 2007. It thus lasted five years, five months and four days for one court instance.

    19. A.  Admissibility

  19. 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.

    20. B.  Merits

  20. 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

  21. 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). Furthermore, the Court considers that, in dismissing the applicants' complaint that the proceedings in their case exceeded a reasonable time, the Warszawa Court of Appeal 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).

  22. 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 notes that during the period under consideration the proceedings were stayed ex lege for over 3 years pending the termination of the insolvency proceedings. However, the domestic court cannot be said to have displayed due diligence in dealing with the applicants' case. In particular, the Court observes that the case was heard by the court at only one instance and the first hearing in the case was held two years after the applicants had lodged a claim.

  23. 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.

    24. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.

    II.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

  24. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

    25. “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

  25. The applicants claimed 60,322 Polish zlotys (PLN) in respect of pecuniary damage and PLN 40,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

  26. The Government contested these claims.

  27. 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 applicants jointly EUR 4,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

    28. B.  Costs and expenses

  28. The applicants also claimed a certain amount by way of legal costs and expenses incurred in order to obtain redress for the violation of the Convention. However, they did not specify the sum and requested the Court to assess the amount of costs and expenses to be awarded on the basis of its case-law.

  29. The Government did not express an opinion on the matter.

  30. In the absence of any substantiation of the legal costs and expenses claimed, the Court dismisses the claim.

    31. C.  Default interest

  31. 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.

    32. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

  32. Declares the application admissible;


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


  34. Holds

    35. (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 4,800 (four thousand eight hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage to be converted into Polish zlotys 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;


  35. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim for just satisfaction.

    36. Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 July 2008, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

    Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
    Registrar President


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