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 >>
KLIK v. POLAND - 39836/09 [2010] ECHR 1970 (7 December 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1970.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 1970
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF KLIK v. POLAND
(Application
no. 39836/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7
December 2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Klik 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. 39836/09) 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, Mr Stanisław
Klik (“the applicant”), on 3 July 2009.
The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
On
31 March 2010 the
President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to communicate
the complaint concerning the length of the civil proceedings 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
applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Warszawa.
A. Civil proceedings for payment
On
8 February 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for
payment against the State Treasury.
On
16 December 1999 and on 23 March 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd
Okręgowy) held hearings.
On
26 June 2000 the applicant amended his claim.
On
24 October 2000 the court held a hearing.
On
26 February 2001 the applicant again amended his claim.
On
27 February 2001, 9 August 2001 and 17 January 2002 the court held
hearings.
On
19 March and 10 April 2002 the applicant amended his claim.
On
21 March 2002 the applicant's legal-aid lawyer informed the court
that he had requested the Regional Bar Association to release him
from his duties as the applicant's representative.
On
8 April 2002 the Regional Bar Association appointed a new legal-aid
lawyer to represent the applicant.
On
28 May 2002 the applicant's legal-aid lawyer requested the court to
be given time to get acquainted with the case.
In
October 2003 the applicant requested the court to appoint a different
legal-aid lawyer as the current one failed to protect his interests.
On
9 October and December 2003 the court held hearings.
On
8 December 2003 the Regional Bar Association assigned a new legal-aid
lawyer to represent the applicant.
On
19 February 2004 the applicant amended his claim.
On
24 February 2004 the court held a hearing. A hearing scheduled for 14
October 2004 was cancelled as the presiding judge assigned to the
case resigned from his job.
On
20 January 2005 the court held a hearing.
On
25 January 2005 the court requested the defendant to submit copies of
case-files concerning enforcement proceedings instituted against the
applicant which were necessary for preparing an expert report.
A
hearing scheduled for 11 April 2005 was cancelled as the defendant
failed to submit the relevant documents within the prescribed
time-limit.
In
May 2005 an expert submitted a report.
On
8 June and 12 October 2005, 25 January and 17 May 2006 the Warsaw
Regional Court held hearings.
Between
May and November 2006 the court dealt with the applicant's requests
to order another expert report.
On
24 November 2006 an expert submitted a report.
On
25 January and 16 May 2007 the court held hearings.
On
12 June 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant's
claim.
On
1 August 2007 the applicant appealed.
On
18 August 2007 the applicant's legal-aid lawyer informed the court
that she requested the Regional Bar Association to be released from
her duties pointing out to the applicant's lack of trust in her.
On
17 September 2007 the Regional Bar Association assigned T.L. as the
applicant's legal-aid lawyer.
On
17 September 2007 and 18 February 2008 the applicant amended his
claim.
On
27 May 2008 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) held
a hearing.
On
8 October 2008 the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed the contested
judgment and remitted the case.
On
17 December 2008 and again on 19 February 2009 the applicant amended
his claim.
On
2 April 2009 the applicant informed the court that he resigned from
being represented by T.L. and requested the court to appoint a new
legal-aid lawyer: a legal adviser and not an advocate. On the same
date the court ordered another expert report.
On
17 June 2009 the court dismissed the applicant's request to appoint
another legal-aid lawyer. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed
against this decision.
On
7 December 2009 and 12 April 2010 an expert requested the court to
extend the time-limit for submitting a report.
On
10 May 2010 an expert submitted a report.
The
proceedings are pending before the first-instance court.
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
On
6 April 2009 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw Court of Appeal
a complaint under section 5 of 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”).
On
15 May 2009 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's
complaint stating that there were no significant periods
of unjustified inactivity for which the Warsaw Regional Court
had been responsible. In its analysis the court examined only the
course of the proceedings after 8 October 2008 stating that the
applicant's complaint could only refer to the current stage of the
proceedings i.e. after the remittal.
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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF
ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNREASONABLE
LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS
The
applicant 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 8 February 1999 and
has not yet ended. It has thus lasted eleven years and seven months
for two levels 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
1. The submissions before the Court
(a) The Government
The
Government submitted that the case was rather a complex one. In
particular, they referred to the fact that the domestic courts had
recourse to numerous expert opinions.
The
Government further argued that the applicant significantly
contributed to the length of the proceedings because he had modified
the value of his claim on nine occasions. The Government also
underlined the lack of the applicant's cooperation with his legal-aid
lawyers. In the Government's opinion the fact that the applicant's
legal-aid counsels were changed four times during the proceedings
contributed to their protracted length. Finally, the Government
submitted that the applicant contributed to the length of the
proceedings by challenging expert opinions and requesting the court
to appoint new experts. In particular, the Government pointed out
that on different stages of the proceedings and without consultation
with his legal-aid lawyers the applicant had submitted twenty-three
requests for new evidence as well as numerous and voluminous
pleadings, often repetitious, which had considerably contributed to
the length of the case.
As
regards the conduct of the domestic authorities, the Government
maintained that they acted with due diligence and that the District
Court “made efforts to ensure that the process of obtaining
evidence followed its proper course”.
(b) The applicant
The
applicant contested the Government's arguments. He submitted that the
domestic courts had been inept in dealing with the case.
2. The Court's assessment
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 considers that the case involved a certain degree of complexity
as the facts of the case had to be assessed against the expert
evidence. However, the complexity of the case cannot explain the
overall length of the proceedings.
As
regards the conduct of the applicant, the Court takes note of the
Government's contention that the applicant changed on several
occasions the value of his claim (see
paragraphs 7, 9, 11, 18, 32 and 35 above). The
Court observes that, while an applicant is entitled to make use of
his procedural right to extend his claim in a civil case, he must be
aware that it may lead to delays the consequences of which he would
have to bear (see Malicka-Wąsowska v. Poland, (dec.),
no. 41413/98, 5 April 2001). It is particularly true in a
situation were modification of the claim results in the repetition of
some of the trial court's proceedings.
The
Court notes that, in the case under consideration, the applicant
modified his claim on nine occasions. Therefore, the Court agrees
that the applicant contributed to the length of the proceedings.
With
regard to the conduct of the domestic authorities, the Court notes
that while it is true that the domestic courts had difficulty in
obtaining a satisfactory expert report, nevertheless, the experts'
work in the context of judicial proceedings was supervised by a
judge, who remained responsible for the preparation and speedy
conduct of proceedings (see, the Proszak v. Poland
judgment of 16 December 1997, Reports of Judgments
and Decisions 1997 VIII, § 44).
Moreover,
the Court observes that although the applicant lodged several
requests for new evidence to be taken, it was for the domestic court
to decide which evidence was relevant to the case. It was not obliged
to accede to all the applicant's requests in this respect. Moreover,
the applicant's requests for evidence do not absolve the courts from
the obligation to proceed speedily. What is more, the impact of these
motions on the conduct of the proceedings was not such as to justify
their overall length.
57. The
Court also notes that while the second-instance court
examined the applicant's appeal with reasonable expedition, the
first-instance court gave its judgment over eight years after the
introduction of the applicant's claim. Despite the latter's
behaviour, that time cannot be regarded as reasonable. The Court
observes that the Warsaw
Regional Court held on average only two hearings a year. In addition,
it appears that no hearings were scheduled between February and
December 1999, between May 2002 and October 2003 and between February
and October 2004. The Court notes that the Government did not provide
any explanation for those delays.
58. Consequently,
the Court considers that, in the particular circumstances of the
instant case, a period of over eleven years and seven months exceeds
a reasonable time.
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention.
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 400,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government contested the claim as exorbitant and unjustified.
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, ruling on an equitable basis and considering that the
applicant contributed to the length of the proceedings, it awards the
applicant EUR 5,400 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
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
Declared the application admissible;
Held that there had been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
Held
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months,
EUR 5,400 (five thousand four 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 amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
Dismissed the remainder of the applicant's 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
