European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 37297/05
by Janusz KRAWCZAK
against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Giovanni Bonello, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 October 2005,

Having regard to the Court’s decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Janusz Krawczak, is a Polish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Poznań. He is represented before the Court by Ms M. Sykulska-Przybysz, a lawyer practising in Tczew. The Polish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wolasiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

1.  The criminal proceedings against the applicant

On 17 June 1999 the Gdańsk District Court remanded the applicant in custody on suspicion of armed robbery.

On 15 May 2001 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with several counts of armed robbery which had been committed in an organised armed criminal group. The first hearing in the case was held on 28 December 2001. The Gdańsk Regional Court held some 180 hearings and heard nearly 400 witnesses. However, a number of hearings in 2004-2005 were cancelled.

On 21 September 2005 the President of the Criminal Section IV of the Gdańsk Regional Court assigned a new judge rapporteur. Consequently, the trial had to be restarted.

On 18 October 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal ordered the applicant’s release under police supervision. On 24 November 2005 the trial court made a further severance order and split the case into eleven separate cases. It appears that the charges against the applicant were to be examined in two separate sets of proceedings.

It appears that the proceedings against the applicant are still pending before the first-instance court.

2.  The applicant’s complaint against the unreasonable length of proceedings

On 30 January 2006 the applicant filed with the Gdańsk Court of Appeal a complaint about a breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time and asked for compensation. He relied on section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (“the 2004 Act”).

On 23 March 2006 the Court of Appeal dismissed his complaint as unfounded, having regard to the criteria set out in section 2 § 2 of the 2004 Act, namely the conduct of the court and of the parties, the nature of the case, its factual and legal complexity and what was at stake in the proceedings for the complainant. It held that there had been no unreasonable delays in the proceedings within the meaning of the 2004 Act. In respect of the proceedings in the applicant’s case, the Court of Appeal found that there had been no delays after the entry into force of the 2004 Act.

B.  Relevant domestic law and practice

The legal provisions applicable at the material time as well as matters of practice are set out in paragraphs 12-23 of the decision given by the Court on 1 March 2005 in the case of Charzyński v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-V

COMPLAINTS

THE LAW

The applicant alleged that there had been a breach of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention.

The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaints had already been raised in his previous application (no. 40387/06) in which the Court delivered judgment on 8 April 2008. Consequently, the present application should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention, which provides:

“2.  The Court shall not deal with any application submitted under Article 34 that

...

(b) is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court ... and contains no relevant new information.”

The applicant submitted in reply that the criminal proceedings against him were still pending.

The Court observes that on 22 September 2006 the applicant lodged an application (no.40387/06) with the Court complaining about the unreasonable length of criminal proceedings against him, lack of impartiality on the part of the Court of Appeal and lack of an effective remedy in respect of the protracted length of the proceedings.

The Court notes that the facts and complaints of the present application are substantially the same as those already examined by the Court in the case of Krawczak v. Poland (no. 40387/06, judgment of 8 April 2008).

The Court finds that the applicant has not submitted any “relevant new information” in relation to the above complaints. Consequently, the Court considers that the application is inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 2 (b) and 4 of the Convention as being substantially the same as the applicant’s previous application no.40387/06 (see, for example, Alabay and Güzel v. Turkey (dec.), no. 41334/98, 31 January 2006).

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible

Fatoş Aracı Giovanni Bonello
Deputy Registrar President