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 >>
FLORCZYK AND OTHERS v. POLAND - 30030/06 [2010] ECHR 1496 (12 October 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1496.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 1496
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF FLORCZYK AND OTHERS v. POLAND
(Application
no. 30030/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 October
2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Florczyk and Others v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Ljiljana Mijović,
President,
Lech Garlicki,
Nebojša Vučinić,
judges,
and Fatoş Aracı,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 21 September 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 30030/06) 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 Polish
nationals, Mr Zygmunt Florczyk, Ms Grażyna Florczyk, Mr Wojciech
Florczyk and Ms Maria Florczyk (“the applicants”), on 19
July 2006.
The
applicants were represented by Mr M. Prawdzic-Łaszcz, a lawyer
practising in Kraków. The Polish Government
(“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J.
Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
On
15 June 2009 the
President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was also decided that the Court
would rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the
same time (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention as applicable at the
material time).
In
accordance with Protocol no. 14, the application was
subsequently allocated to a Committee of three Judges.
The
Government objected to the examination of the application by a
Committee. After having considered the Government's objection, the
Court rejects it.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicants, Mr Zygmunt Florczyk, Ms Grażyna Florczyk,
Mr Wojciech Florczyk and Ms Maria Florczyk, are Polish nationals
who were born in 1951, 1949, 1950 and 1974 respectively and live in
Łódź and Cracow, Poland.
On
18 January 2002 the applicants requested the Cracow Municipal Office
to pay compensation for part of their predecessor's plots of land
which had been expropriated as a part of the land development plans,
namely for the construction of a road.
On
9 August 2002 the Cracow Municipal Office requested the Małopolski
Governor to issue a formal confirmation that the expropriation had
taken place.
On
25 September 2002 the applicants submitted a copy of the Cracow
District Court's decision declaring them successors as to 1/6 of the
property of their predecessor in title.
On
12 May 2003 the Małopolski Governor informed the applicants that
there had been a delay in the proceedings and that they would not end
until 30 August 2003. The Governor also summoned them to submit
certain documents.
On
12 May 2003 the applicants lodged a complaint with the President of
the Office for Housing and Town Development about inactivity on the
part of the Małopolski Governor. On 30 June 2003 the President
of the Office for Housing and Town Development dismissed their
complaint finding that the delay in the proceedings was caused by
difficulties in finding other successors.
On
3 October 2003 the Cracow Municipal Office informed the applicants
that the proceedings would lie dormant until the delivery of a
decision by the Małopolski Governor.
On
17 November 2003 the applicants requested the Cracow Municipal Office
to take action with a view of establishing the whereabouts of other
parties to the proceedings.
On
27 November 2003 the Cracow Municipal Office informed the applicants
that they had established a address of a certain W.P.
On
23 January 2004 the Governor informed the applicants about further
delays in the proceedings and that they would not end until 23 March
2004.
On
23 March 2004 the Governor again informed the applicants about
further delays in the proceedings.
On
21 May 2004 the Cracow Municipal Office informed the Governor of the
addresses of two successors in title, W.P. and E.S-S.
In
October 2004 the Governor requested the Cracow District Court to
appoint a guardian for persons whose whereabouts remained unknown.
On
13 January 2005 the Cracow District Court stayed the proceedings
since the Governor's representative had failed to comply with the
court's order to submit certain information concerning the case. The
proceedings were resumed on a later unknown date.
On
21 March 2005 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Cracow
Regional Administrative Court about inactivity on the part of the
Małopolski Governor. On 29 March 2006 the Cracow Regional
Administrative Court allowed the applicants' complaint, held that the
proceedings had not been conducted with necessary diligence and
obliged the Governor to issue a decision on the merits.
On
11 July 2006 the Małopolski Governor informed the applicants
about further delays in the proceedings.
On
25 October 2006 the Małopolski Governor appointed an expert to
prepare an estimate of the value of plots.
On
12 December 2006 the Małopolski Governor gave a decision
confirming that on 1 January 1999 the Cracow Municipality had
acquired ownership of the property concerned which had been
expropriated for the purposes of implementing the land development
plans.
On
2 and 3 July 2007 the Cracow Mayor gave two decisions granting
compensation to the applicants.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
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:
“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 18 January 2002
and ended on 3 July 2007. It thus lasted five years and over six
months for one level of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
The Government submitted, firstly, that the applicants
had not attempted to pursue all effective domestic remedies with
respect to their complaint about the length of the proceedings. They
had the following remedies at his disposal: a complaint to the higher
authority under Article 37 § 1 of the Code of
Administrative Procedure and a complaint to the Supreme
Administrative Court under Article 17 of the Law of 11 May 1995
on the Supreme Administrative Court (“the 1995 Act”).
Secondly, the Government argued that the applicant had failed to
lodge a compensation claim with a civil court in order to seek
redress for the alleged damage which had resulted from the inactivity
of the administrative authorities. They relied on Article 417 of the
Civil Code
The
applicants submitted that they had availed themselves of the
administrative complaint relied on by the Government and had also
submitted a successful complaint about the excessive length of the
proceedings to the administrative court. As to the compensatory
remedy, they argued that the matter of damages for the excessive
slowness with which the proceedings had been handled was not related
to the conduct of the proceedings and that its submission could not
have affected their course.
The Court reiterates that the obligation to exhaust
domestic remedies requires only that an applicant make normal use of
effective and sufficient remedies that are capable of remedying the
situation at issue and affording redress for the breaches alleged
(see, among other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC],
§§ 74-76, ECHR 1999-VII).
The Court has held in a number of cases against Poland
that in order to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of
domestic remedies in the context of lengthy administrative
proceedings it was necessary to have recourse to a hierarchical
complaint about inactivity of an administrative authority and to a
subsequent complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court (see, e.g.,
Zynger (dec.), no. 66096/01, 7 May 2002; Futro
v. Poland (dec.), no. 51832/99, 3 June 2003;
Marcinkowscy v. Poland (dec.),
no. 39262/98, 13 November 2003; Mazurek v. Poland
(dec.), no. 57464/00, 7 September 2004; Koss v. Poland,
no. 52495/99, 28 March 2006; Beller v. Poland,
no. 51837/99, 1 February 2005; Karasińska
v. Poland, no. 13771/02, 6 October 2009;
Puchalska v. Poland, no. 10392/04, 6 October
2009).
Examining the instant case, the Court first observes
that on 12 May 2003 the applicants lodged a hierarchical
complaint alleging inactivity on the part of the administrative
authorities with the respective higher authority. They also filed a
complaint with the administrative courts about the authorities'
failure to give a decision on the merits of the case (see paragraphs
11 and 20 above).
The Court further notes that the domestic case-law
relied on by the Government does not constitute evidence of a
sufficiently established judicial practice to show that a claim for
compensation based on Article 417 of the Civil Code was an
effective remedy, and they have thus failed to substantiate their
contention (see Boszko v. Poland, no. 4054/03,
§ 35, 5 December 2006; Grabiński v. Poland,
no. 43702/02, § 74, 17 October 2006; Puczyński
v. Poland, no. 32622/03, § 40,
8 December 2009).
Accordingly, the Court concludes that, for the
purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the
applicants have exhausted domestic remedies in respect of the
administrative proceedings. For these reasons, the Government's plea
of inadmissibility on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic
remedies must be dismissed.
The
Court further notes that the application is not manifestly
ill founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3
of the Convention. It also 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 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).
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
applicants claimed 4,500 euros (EUR) each in respect of non pecuniary
damage.
The
Government contested the claim.
The
Court considers that in the circumstances of the case the applicants
must have sustained non pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable
basis, it awards EUR 3,000 to Ms Grażyna Florczyk and
Mr Wojciech Florczyk jointly and EUR 3,000 to each of the
remaining applicants.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicants also claimed EUR 2,000 for the costs and expenses
incurred before the Court.
The
Government contested the claim.
Regard
being had to the documents in its possession and to its case law,
the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant's claim in
full.
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
that
the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the following
amounts, to be converted into Polish zlotys at the rate applicable at
the date of settlement:
(a)
EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to Ms Grażyna Florczyk and
Wojciech Florczyk jointly and EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros)
to each of the remaining two applicants, plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(b)
EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) jointly to the applicants in
respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to
the applicants;
(c)
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 applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 October 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Ljiljana Mijović
Deputy
Registrar President
