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 >>
MADELA v. POLAND - 62424/00 [2008] ECHR 65 (22 January 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/65.html
Cite as:
[2008] ECHR 65
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF MADEŁA v. POLAND
(Application
no. 62424/00)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 January
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 Madeła v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Josep Casadevall,
Giovanni Bonello,
Stanislav Pavlovschi,
Lech Garlicki,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 4 January 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 62424/00) 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 Barbara
Madeła (“the applicant”), on 30 November 1999.
The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agents, Mr K.Drzewicki and subsequently, Mr J.Wołąsiewicz,
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
On
14 January 2003 the
Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to
communicate the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings 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
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.
On 20 October 1994, J.B. (the applicant's
neighbour) lodged a claim for payment against the applicant with the
Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).
On
8 December 1994 the court held a hearing and ordered J.B.
(“the plaintiff”) to submit a copy of the statement of
claim.
On
3 March 1995 the court stayed the proceedings as the
plaintiff had failed to comply with its order.
Subsequently,
on 17 May 1995, J.B.'s husband – M.B. – sued
the applicant in the Warsaw District Court seeking payment.
On
4 July and 26 September 1995 the court held hearings.
At
a hearing on 21 November 1995 the court heard evidence from
one witness. On 28 December 1995 the court heard evidence
from M.B.
On
20 November 1996 the court resumed the proceedings which
had been stayed on 3 March 1995.
On
25 November 1996 the court decided to join both cases.
On
24 February 1997 the court notified the housing
co-operative - Osiedle Młodych – that it would be
in their interest to join the proceedings.
On
23 April 1997 the court held a hearing and heard evidence
from one witness.
On
10 June 1997 the applicant challenged the impartiality of
the presiding judge. On 7 July 1997 the court dismissed her
challenge.
On
29 July 1997 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained.
On 24 March 1998 an expert submitted his report to the
court.
At
a hearing held on 2 June 1999 the plaintiffs withdrew their
statement of claim in respect of the applicant. On the same date the
court discontinued the proceedings against the applicant.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
The
legal provisions and practice applicable at the material time are set
out in paragraphs 26-35 of the judgment delivered by the Court on
30 May 2006 in the case of Barszcz v. Poland, no.
71152/01.
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 set
out 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 20 October 1994
and ended on 2 June 1999. It thus lasted for four years,
seven months and thirteen days at one level of jurisdiction.
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 40,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government contested the claim, arguing that the application was
manifestly ill-founded. In the alternative, they asked the Court to
rule that a finding of a violation would constitute in itself
sufficient just satisfaction, or to make an award of just
satisfaction on the basis of its case-law in similar cases and
national economic circumstances.
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 considers that the applicant must have sustained
non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis it awards the
applicant 3,400 euros (EUR) under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also claimed PLN 9,272.59 for costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts.
The
Government contested the claim.
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). It further
notes that the costs of the domestic proceedings can be awarded if
they are incurred by an applicant in order to try to prevent the
violation found by the Court or to obtain redress therefor (see,
among other authorities, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v.
Belgium (former Article 50), judgment of 18 October 1982, Series
A no. 54, p. 8, § 17). In the present case the Court finds
that, the costs of the proceedings before the domestic courts cannot
be considered to have been actually and necessarily incurred in order
to prevent or to have redressed a breach of the Convention. The claim
concerning those costs must therefore be rejected.
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 remainder of 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, the following amounts, to be converted into Polish zlotys
at the rate applicable at the date of the settlement:
(i) EUR 3,400 (three thousand four hundred euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(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 22 January 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
