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 >>
GLOWACKA AND KROLICKA v. POLAND - 1730/08 [2010] ECHR 1969 (7 December 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1969.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 1969
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF GŁOWACKA AND KRÓLICKA v. POLAND
(Application
no. 1730/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 December
2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Głowacka and Królicka 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 16 November 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 1730/08) 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 two Polish nationals, Ms Danuta Glowacka (“first applicant”)
and Mrs Ewa Królicka (“the second applicant”),
on 30 November 2007
The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry for Foreign
Affairs.
On
17 December 2009 the
President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to give notice
of the application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No.
14, the application was assigned to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
first applicant was born in 1943 and the second applicant in 1948
respectively. They both live in Chrzanów, Poland.
The
applicants' late parents owned a plot of land in Chrzanów. On
14 April 1980 part of that land was taken over by the
Chrzanów Municipality for the purpose of constructing a bus
station there.
On
29 May 1992 the Katowice Governor declared that the Chrzanów
Municipality had acquired ex lege the ownership of the plots
of land in question.
On
24 May 1994 the applicants lodged an application with the Katowice
Governor's Office asking for reconsideration of the 1980 decision. On
22 November 1994 the Katowice Governor gave a decision and refused
the applicants' request.
On
the applicants' appeal, on 8 July 1997, the President of the Office
for Housing and Town Development quashed the first-instance decision
and remitted the case.
On
13 August 1997 the municipality appealed against this decision to the
Warsaw Regional Administrative Court. On 28 September 1999 the Warsaw
Regional Administerative Court dismissed the municipality's appeal.
On
21 November 2000 the Malopolski Governer (who had meanwhile become
competent to examine the case) refused the applicants' request for
reconsideration of the 1980's decision. On the parties' subsequent
appeal, the President of the Office for Housing and Town Development
again quashed the first-instance decision on 31 January 2001.
On
9 August 2001 the Governor for the third time refused the applicants'
request. On 7 December 2001 the President of the Office for Housing
and Town Development once again quashed the first-instance decision.
On
26 July 2002 the Governor for the fourth time refused the applicants'
application. On 10 June 2003 on the parties' appeal, the President of
the Office for Housing and Town Development quashed the Governor's
decision.
On
23 October 2003 the Governor for the fifth time refused to declare
the decision of 1980 null and void.
On
6 February 2004 the Minister of Infrastructure (meanwhile competent
to examine the case) upheld the first-instance decision. On a
parties' subsequent appeal, on 6 May 2005 the Warsaw Regional
Administrative Court quashed the latter decision.
On
2 January 2006 the applicants complained to the Minister of Transport
and Construction about the delay in the proceedings. On 20 January
2006 the Minister dismissed their complaint as manifestly ill founded
since meanwhile the Governor had delivered a decision.
On
12 January 2006 the Governor gave its sixth decision in the
applicants' case and declared the decision of 1980 null and void. On
the municipality's appeal, on 26 April 2006 the Minister of Transport
quashed the first-instance decision. On 10 October 2006 the Warsaw
Regional Administrative Court quashed the Minister's decision. On 22
March 2007 the Minister upheld the Governor's decision of
12 January 2006. On 30 May 2007 the Minister's
decision became final since none of the parties appealed.
On
6 February 2008, upon their requests, the Kraków Governor
informed the applicants that even though the decision of 1980 had
been declared null and void, the applicants' names could not be
entered in the Land Register because the decision of 29 May 1992
remained valid and the local municipality was still indicated as the
rightful owner.
On
4 March 2008 the applicants filed a motion for reopening of the
proceedings terminated by the decision of 29 May 1992.
On
9 April 2008 the Małopolski Governor decided to reopen the
proceedings.
On
24 April 2008 the applicants applied to the Minister of Internal
Affairs and Administration to declare the decision of 29 May 1992
null and void. On 16 June 2008 the Małopolski Governor declared
that the decision of 1992 had been given contrary to the law then in
force. On 29 October 2008 the Minister of Internal Affairs
and Administration declared the decision of 1992 null and void. The
Chrzanów Municipality lodged a motion for reconsideration of
the case. On 29 January 2009 the Minister upheld its previous
decision. On 9 April 2009 the Minister's decision became final since
none of the parties appealed.
II. 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 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 and the judgment in the case
of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46,
ECHR 2005-V.
THE LAW
I. THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THE APPLICATION
UNDER ARTICLE 37 OF THE CONVENTION
On 27 July 2010 the Government submitted a unilateral
declaration similar to that in the case of Tahsin Acar v. Turkey
((preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, ECHR
2003-VI) and informed the Court that they were ready to accept that
there had been a violation of the applicants' rights under Article 6
§ 1 of the Convention as a result of the unreasonable length of
the administrative proceedings in which the applicants had been
involved. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Government proposed
to award each of the applicants 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (the
equivalent of approximately 2,500 euros (EUR)). The Government
invited the Court to strike out the application in accordance with
Article 37 of the Convention.
The
applicants disagreed with the Government's proposal and maintained
that the sum proposed was unacceptably low.
The Court observes that, as it has already held on
many occasions, it may be appropriate under certain circumstances to
strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the
Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by the respondent
Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case
to be continued. It will depend on the particular circumstances
whether the unilateral declaration offers a sufficient basis for
finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention
and its Protocols does not require the Court to continue its
examination of the case (see Tahsin Acar, cited above,
§ 75; and Melnic v. Moldova, no. 6923/03, § 22,
14 November 2006).
According to the Court's case-law, the amount
proposed in a unilateral declaration may be considered a
sufficient basis for striking out an application or part thereof. The
Court will have regard in this connection to the compatibility of the
amount with its own awards in similar length of proceedings cases,
bearing in mind the principles which it has developed for determining
victim status and for assessing the amount of non-pecuniary
compensation to be awarded where it has found a breach of the
reasonable time requirement (see Cocchiarella v. Italy
[GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 85-107, ECHR
2006-...; Scordino v. Italy (no.1) [GC], no. 36813/97,
§§ 193-215, ECHR-2006-...; and Dubjakova v.
Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299/01, 10 October 2004).
On the facts and for the reasons set out above, in
particular the amount of compensation proposed to the applicants, the
Court finds that the Government have failed to provide a sufficient
basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the
Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its
examination of the case (see, conversely, Spółka
z o.o. WAZA v. Poland (striking out), no. 11602/02,
26 June 2007).
This
being so, the Court rejects the Government's request to strike the
application out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the
Convention and will accordingly pursue its examination of the
admissibility and merits of the case.
II. 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
period to be taken into consideration began on 24 May 1994 and ended
on 29 January 2009. It thus lasted fourteen years and eight months.
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
Government did not submit observations on the merits of the
application.
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.
III. 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 in total 24,000 euros (EUR) in
respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 16,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
The Government contested these claims.
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
applicants must have sustained non pecuniary damage. Ruling on
an equitable basis, it awards each of the applicants EUR 6,800 under
that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant did not make any claim for costs and expenses involved in
the proceedings.
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
1. Rejects the Government's request to strike the
application out of its list;
2. Declares 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 each of the applicants, within three
months, EUR 6,800 (six thousand eight hundred euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be
converted into Polish zlotys at the rate applicable at the date of
settlement;
(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 applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 December 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Ljiljana Mijović
Deputy
Registrar President
