European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Zofia WYSOCKA and Others v Poland - 55726/07 [2010] ECHR 1477 (14 September 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1477.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1477
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
55726/07
by Zofia WYSOCKA and Others
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 September 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Ljiljana
Mijović,
President,
Ledi
Bianku,
Nebojša
Vučinić,
judges,
and
Fatoş Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 November 2007,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 17 May 2010 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants' reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicants, Ms Zofia Wysocka (“the first applicant”), and her two sons Mr Radosław Wysocki (“the second applicant”) and Mr Bogumił Wysocki (“the third applicant”), are Polish nationals who were born in 1948, 1973 and 1977 respectively and live in Józefów. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. First set of civil proceedings before the Otwock District Court (sygn. akt IC243/98)
On 14 July 1998 the first applicant and her husband instituted civil proceedings for payment against a certain P.T. who, in their view, illegally occupied parts of their apartment, attic and basement.
On 19 April 2000 the first applicant extended her claim and demanded further compensation for objects allegedly stolen by P.T. The proceedings were transferred to the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) (sygn. Akt IV C 1142/00).
2. Second set of civil proceedings
On 19 February 1999 the first applicant's husband instituted another set of civil proceedings for compensation against P.T.
On 28 June 1999 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a default judgment (sygn. akt. IV C 648/99).
On an unspecified date P.T. appealed against that judgment.
On 11 September 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court stayed the proceedings.
On 8 January 2002 the first applicant's husband died. His rights and obligations in this set of proceedings were taken over by his sons, the second and the third applicants.
On 15 January 2003 the proceedings were resumed; however, no hearing date was scheduled.
3. Joint proceedings
On 3 February 2003 the first applicant requested the Warsaw Regional Court to join the proceedings instituted by her and her husband on 14 July 1998 and those instituted by her husband on 19 February 1999.
On 6 August 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court granted the first applicant's request and joined the proceedings IV C 1142/00 and IV C 648/99 (sygn. akt IV C 2662/04).
On 6 February 2005 new provisions of the Code of Civil Proceedings (Kodeks Postępowania Cywilnego) entered into force. They, inter alia, raised a financial threshold of the value of a claim limiting access to a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court.
On 5 October 2006 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment (sygn. Akt XXV C 2990/05), dismissing the first applicant's claim against P.T. and quashing the default judgment of 28 June 1999. The Court found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the amount of the loss they had suffered, nor had they shown a causal link between the actions of the defendant and their alleged loss.
All of the applicants appealed.
On 13 September 2007 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed all of their appeals (sygn. akt VI A Ca 375/07).
The Court of Appeal's judgment was served on the first applicant on 24 October 2007 with a note that a cassation appeal was not available.
On 27 March 2008 the applicants lodged a request with the Warsaw Court of Appeal for the proceedings to be reopened.
On 27 October 2008 their request was refused (sygn. Akt VI A Ca 1065/08/08).
4. The first applicant's complaint under the 2004 Act
On 25 November 2004 the first applicant lodged a complaint under 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”). She requested the court to find that the length of the proceedings in which she was involved was unreasonable and sought just satisfaction.
On 20 January 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal acknowledged that the proceedings were indeed lengthy and granted the first applicant 2,000 Polish zlotys (sygn. akt VI S 34/04). However, from the very short reasoning of the court's decision it emerges that it only took into consideration the period of ten months during which the Regional Court had examined the applicants' request for the resumption of the proceedings.
5. Criminal proceedings instituted by the applicants
The applicants were also involved in numerous criminal proceedings against P.T. The most recent decisions were given by the Warsaw District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) who refused to institute an investigation and discontinued the proceedings on 27 December 2006 and on 26 August 2008.
B. 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; 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.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings. They also alleged that the proceedings had been unfair and that the courts had not been impartial.
Invoking Article 8 of the Convention, they alleged a breach of their right to respect for their family life, claiming that the courts which examined their case had interfered, without justification, with their private and family matters.
They further raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention that, as a result of the excessive length of the proceedings, they had been deprived of the opportunity to lodge a cassation appeal, because the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure were amended while their proceedings were pending before the Regional Court; the financial threshold limiting the right to lodge a cassation appeal was raised.
They also complained, without relying on any provisions of the Convention, about the refusal to institute criminal proceedings against P.T.
THE LAW
A. Length of proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect
The applicants complained about the length of the proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
By letter dated 17 May 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“(...) the Government hereby wish to express – by way of a unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicants were involved. At the same time, the Government admit that the applicants can claim to be victims of violation of their right to have their case heard within a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
In these circumstances (...), the Government declare to pay the applicants jointly the amount of PLN 12,000.
The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, will be free from any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
The Government would respectfully suggest that the above declaration be accepted by the Court as 'any other reason' justifying the striking out of the case of the Court's list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
(...) as transpires from the Government's unilateral declaration, the Government accepted paying to the applicants jointly the amount of PLN 12,000 in the event of the Court's striking the case out of its list. ...”
In a letter of 14 June 2010 the applicants accepted that the validity of their complaint under Article 6 of the Convention as regards the excessive length of the proceedings had been acknowledged. At the same time they expressed their disappointment that their further complaints “had been ignored”.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application or part thereof under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006 ....; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government's declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
B. Remaining complaints
The applicants further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unfairness of the proceedings in which they were involved.
Invoking Article 8 of the Convention, they alleged a breach of their right to respect for their family life, claiming that the courts which examined their case had interfered, without justification, with their private and family matters.
They further raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention that, as a result of the excessive length of the proceedings, they had been deprived of the opportunity to lodge a cassation appeal, because the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure were amended while their proceedings were pending before the Regional Court; in particular the threshold limiting the right to lodge a cassation appeal was raised.
They also complained, without relying on any provisions of the Convention, about the refusal to institute criminal proceedings against P.T.
The Court considers that the complaint about the alleged unfairness of the proceedings is clearly of a fourth-instance nature.
As regards the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention the Court considers that it lacks substantiation.
As regards the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that the Convention does not guarantee a right of access to the highest judicial authority; in any event provisions which set a financial threshold for lodging a cassation appeal do not, of themselves, amount to a violation of Article 13 of the Convention (Zmaliński v. Poland (dec.), no. 52039/99, 16 October 2001).
It follows that the above complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
As regards the complaint about the refusal to institute criminal proceedings against P.T., the Convention does not provide a right to have third persons prosecuted or punished; it follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae and must be rejected pursuant to 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (Rampogna and Murgia v. Italy (dec.) 40753/98, 11 May 1999).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government's declaration in respect of the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of the proceedings and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Fatoş Aracı Ljiljana Mijović
Deputy
Registrar President
