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 >>
SOBIECCY v. POLAND - 32594/03 [2010] ECHR 54 (19 January 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/54.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 54
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF SOBIECCY v. POLAND
(Application
no. 32594/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
19 January 2010
This judgment will become
final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2
of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sobieccy v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
Ján Šikuta,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
Nebojša Vučinić,
judges,
and Lawrence Early,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 15 December 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 32594/03) 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, Mrs Anna Sobiecka and
Mr Ignacy Sobiecki (“the applicants”), on 30
September 2003.
The
applicants were represented by Mr G. Górski, a lawyer
practising in Toruń. The Polish Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The
applicants alleged, in particular, that the length of administrative
proceedings was in breach of the “reasonable time”
requirement.
On
14 January 2008 the President of the Fourth Section of the Court
decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was
also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the
application at the same time (Article 29 § 3).
The
applicants and the Government each filed observations on the merits
(Rule 59 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicants, Mrs Anna Sobiecka and Mr Ignacy Sobiecki, were born in
1957 and 1959 respectively and live in Chalin.
A. The circumstances of the case
The
facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
follows.
The
applicants are farmers and they own a property in Borowo, Poland.
On
19 October 1998 the Włocławek Regional Governor (Wojewoda)
gave a decision limiting the applicants' right to use their property
because of a building permit granted to Europol Gaz S.A.
(“the investor”) for the construction of an
underground gas pipeline which would pass through the applicants'
property. The decision in question also obliged the applicants to
make the property accessible to the investor in order that he could
maintain the gas pipeline. It also imposed an obligation on the
investor to restore the property to its previous condition and to pay
the applicants compensation once the construction works were
completed.
On
1 December 1999 the investor informed the Lipno District Mayor
(Starostwo Powiatowe) that the construction works on the gas
pipeline had been completed.
On
21 February 2000 the applicants requested the Lipno District Mayor
to calculate the compensation due.
On
28 March 2001 the Mayor gave a decision determining the amount of
compensation due at 24,510 Polish zlotys (PLN).
On
unspecified dates the applicants and the investor lodged appeals.
On
7 June 2001 the Kujawsko-Pomorski Regional Governor quashed the
decision and remitted the case to the Lipno District Mayor.
On
1 October 2002 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Supreme
Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny)
that the administration had taken no action.
On
6 March 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the complaint
and ordered the Mayor to give a decision and determine the amount of
compensation within two months.
That
time-limit expired and no decision was given. However, the Mayor gave
several procedural decisions (on 27 February,
30 April, 30 July
and 29 October 2004,
31 January, 25 March,
31 May, 18 July,
13 September, 28 October
and 30 November 2005,
and 29 March and 31 May 2006), each
time setting a new time-limit for the case to be decided
(postanowienie o wyznaczeniu nowego terminu załatwienia
sprawy). The Mayor relied on similar reasons for each
postponement, which in his view were beyond his control, namely that
there had been difficulties in finding a person who could draft
an expert report on the value of the property (operat szacunkowy),
a document which was indispensable in determining the amount of
compensation.
On
unspecified dates the applicants and the investor again lodged
complaints that the administration had taken no action, arguing that
the Mayor had done nothing except set new time-limits for issuing the
decision in question.
On
28 January 2004 the Bydgoszcz Regional Administrative Court
(Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny) gave judgment and
dismissed the applicants' complaint. The parties did not produce a
copy of the reasoning in this judgment.
On
24 August 2005 the Bydgoszcz Regional Administrative Court likewise
dismissed the investor's complaint. It held that the delay in issuing
the decision requested was not attributable to the Mayor, who had
experienced objective difficulty in finding an expert to draw up a
report on the value of the property.
On
21 February 2007 the Lipno District Mayor gave a decision determining
the amount of compensation at PLN 12,226, and imposed an obligation
on the investor to pay the compensation within fourteen days of the
date on which the decision became final.
The
applicants and the investor appealed against that decision on
10 March 2007 and 13 March 2007 respectively.
On
22 May 2007 the Kujawsko-Pomorski Regional Governor upheld the
first-instance decision.
On
16 July 2007 the applicants appealed to the Bydgoszcz Regional
Administrative Court.
On
31 July 2007 the Kujawsko-Pomorski Regional Governor suspended the
enforcement of his own decision of 22 May 2007 pending the resolution
of the case by the Regional Administrative Court.
On
18 December 2007 the Bydgoszcz Regional Administrative Court quashed
the challenged decision and the preceding decision of
21 February 2007. The proceedings are now pending before
the Supreme Administrative Court.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
The relevant domestic law on remedies for inaction on
the part of the administrative authorities is set out in the
Court's judgment in the case of Grabiński v. Poland,
no. 43702/02, §§ 60 65, 17 October 2006.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXCESSIVE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS
The
present case was communicated under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention on account of the excessive length of the administrative
proceedings and on account of the alleged limitation on the
applicants' access to a court resulting from the non-enforcement of
the final judgment given by the Supreme Administrative Court on 6
March 2003. However, the Court considers that the whole application
should be examined from the standpoint of the length of the
proceedings alone.
The relevant part of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention reads:
“In the determination of his
civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ...
hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The
Court observes that the proceedings in question began on 21 February
2000 and are still pending. Thus, they have so far lasted over
nine years and eight months.
A. Admissibility
The
Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. Nor is
it inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared
admissible.
B. Merits
The Government agreed that the
proceedings in the present case were in breach of the “reasonable
time” requirement. They relied on the particular complexity of
the case and on the difficulties which the domestic administrative
authorities had faced in finding an expert to assess the amount of
compensation due to the applicants. According to the Government, the
Lipno District Mayor sent almost seventy requests to various experts
asking them for an assessment.
The Government further submitted
that the present case did not concern employment or pension issues
and that what was at stake for the applicants was of a purely
pecuniary nature. Therefore “special diligence” in the
case was not required from the domestic authorities.
The Government concluded that
the national authorities had regularly informed the applicants of the
progress of the proceedings and that they had generally shown due
diligence in the handling of their case.
Lastly, the Government admitted
that the applicants had not significantly contributed to the length
of the proceedings.
The applicants maintained that
the proceedings had been unreasonably long. They claimed that the
domestic authorities had been neglecting their constitutional
obligation to determine and pay compensation for the seized property
for ten years.
The
Court will assess the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings
in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to
the criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity
of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant
authorities (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v.
France [GC], 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII, and Humen
v. Poland [GC], no. 26614/95, § 60, 15 October
1999).
In
the present case the Government firstly relied on the complexity of
the case and, in particular, the difficulty in finding experts to
assess the amount of compensation due to the applicants. The
Government further submitted that since the present case did not
concern issues of employment or pensions, “special diligence”
was not required in its examination.
The Court recognises that the
case was of a certain complexity and that the domestic authorities
had to go to some trouble to find an expert to calculate the amount
of compensation. However, the Court considers that the complexity of
the case and the fact that it did not concern a specific issue in
which special diligence is required cannot justify the length of
proceedings which have already lasted almost ten years. Even taking
into account certain objective obstacles cited by the Government,
such a period of time must still be considered excessive.
Having examined all the material submitted to it and
taking into account all the arguments put forward by the Government,
the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the
proceedings failed to meet the “reasonable time”
requirement.
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 applicants claimed 14,200
euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 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 awards EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicants, who were represented by a lawyer, also claimed EUR 1,450
in respect of the costs of legal representation before the Court.
They produced a copy of the contract with their lawyer for legal
representation before the Court at a cost of 4,100 Polish zlotys
(PLN).
The Government requested that
the Court take into consideration that the costs awarded should be
reasonable as to quantum.
According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of
his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these
have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to
quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the information in
its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it
reasonable to award the full amount claimed.
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
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months of
the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts to be converted into Polish zlotys at the rate applicable on
the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in
respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
1,450 (one thousand four hundred and fifty euros) plus any tax that
may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and
expenses,
(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 19 January 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
