European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Ryszard SADOWSKI v Poland - 5127/09 [2010] ECHR 800 (11 May 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/800.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 800
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
5127/09
by Ryszard SADOWSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas
Bratza,
President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Giovanni
Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Ledi
Bianku,
Nebojša
Vučinić,
judges,
and Lawrence
Early, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 December 2008,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 1 March 2010 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant's reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ryszard Sadowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Warszawa. 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 applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Civil proceedings for the division of inheritance (no. I Ns 855/04)
On 16 June 1994 the applicant brought an action for the division of an inheritance.
On 30 June 1997 the Grójec District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision (postanowienie). The applicant appealed.
On 13 October 1998 the Radom Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the contested decision and remitted the case.
On 9 September 1999 the Grójec District Court ordered a supplementary expert report.
On 1 August and 16 November 2000 the court fined the expert for his failure to produce a report.
On 8 January 2001 the expert submitted the supplementary report to the Grójec District Court.
On 18 September 2002 the Grójec District Court stayed the proceedings as one of the parties had died. The court resumed the proceedings on 28 September 2004 following the appointment of the legal successor of the deceased party.
On 16 November 2004, 10 February and 8 March 2005, 2 November 2006, 8 January, 26 March and 23 May 2007 the court held hearings.
On 5 June 2007 the Grójec District Court gave the second decision on the division of the inheritance. The applicant appealed.
On 28 October 2007 the Radom Regional Court quashed the contested decision and remitted the case.
In December 2009 the Grójec District Court ordered another expert report.
The proceedings are still pending before the Grójec District Court.
2. The applicant's first complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings (no. IV S 14/05)
On 9 December 2005 the applicant lodged with the Radom Regional Court 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 3 February 2006 the Radom Regional Court acknowledged that there had been several periods of unjustified inactivity for which the Grójec District Court had been responsible.
The court also emphasised that the applicant had been responsible for some delays that had occurred during the proceedings in that he had filed numerous motions and requests for new evidence to be admitted.
Taking into account the circumstances of the case the court awarded the applicant 5,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 1,300 euros (EUR)) in just satisfaction.
3. The applicant's second complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings (no. IV S 9/08)
On 12 June 2008 the applicant lodged with the Radom Regional Court another complaint under section 5 of the 2004 Act.
On 22 July 2008 the Radom Regional Court stated that between 3 February 2006 and 12 June 2008 there were no significant periods of unjustified inactivity for which the Grójec District Court had been responsible.
Taking into account the circumstances of the case the Radom Regional Court refused to grant the applicant any compensation.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial and enforcement 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, and Ratajczyk v. Poland no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005 VIII, and in its the judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
A. Length of proceedings
The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings. He 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 1 March 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by 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 the unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement that the length of the civil proceedings in the present case has been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement lad down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
In these circumstances, and having regard to the particular facts of the case, the Government declare that they offer to pay to the applicant the amount of PLN 18,700, which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court's case-law. 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 might 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. ...”
In a letter of 17 March 2010 the applicant requested the Court not to strike his case out of the list of cases and asked for 300,000 to 500,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) for non-pecuniary damage.
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 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; and 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 already awarded to the applicant by the domestic court and the sum 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).
The Court further notes that this decision constitutes a final resolution of this application only in so far as the proceedings before the Court are concerned. It is without prejudice to the use by the applicant of other remedies before the domestic courts to claim further compensation in respect of the length of the impugned proceedings, which are still pending before the Grójec District Court.
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 the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government's declaration 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 accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President