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 >>
FLIEGER v. POLAND - 36262/08 [2010] ECHR 958 (22 June 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/958.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 958
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF FLIEGER v. POLAND
(Application
no. 36262/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 June
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 Flieger 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,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi
Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and
Fatoş Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 1 June 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 36262/08) 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 a Polish national, Mr Waldemar
Flieger (“the applicant”), on 14 July 2008.
The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
On
5 February 2009 the
President of the Fourth Section 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 FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1975 and is currently detained at the detention
centre in Chełmno.
A. Main proceedings
On an unspecified date at the beginning of 1999 a
criminal investigation was opened against the applicant.
On 18 June 1999 the applicant was indicted before the
Świecie District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) on charges
of burglaries committed in the period between 9 December 1998 and 17
February 1999. The bill of indictment concerned also
five other accused.
The
first hearings listed for 26 and 27 October 1999 were cancelled due
to the judge rapporteur's reassignment to another court.
Hearings
which were to be held on 8 and 9 December 1999 were adjourned as one
of the co-accused failed to appear.
On
1 March 2000 the first hearing took place.
Further
hearings were held on 22 March, 12 April and 17 May 2000.
The
hearing listed for 7 June 2000 was adjourned.
On
12 July and 25 August 2000 the next hearings took place.
The
hearing listed for 12 October 2000 was adjourned due to the absence
of one of the co-accused.
On
21 November and 20 December 2000 the court held hearings.
On
26 January 2001 the court decided to recommence the trial from the
beginning owing to the necessity of the participation of the
applicant's lawyer. The court ordered also that
an expert report be obtained in order to determine the applicant's
mental condition.
The
hearing listed for 2 March 2001 was cancelled due to the fact that
the judge rapporteur had been changed.
The
next hearing was not scheduled until 13 August 2003. However,
it was adjourned four times until 31 March 2004 due to the absence of
the co-accused – a certain Z.W.
In
the following period until 3 December 2007, 11 hearings were held and
17 others were adjourned or cancelled. In
particular, all hearings scheduled in the period between 12 April and
13 October 2005 were adjourned.
On
3 December 2007 a new judge rapporteur was
assigned to the case.
During
the hearing scheduled for 25 January 2008 the court decided that it
was necessary to conduct the proceedings from the beginning. The
court adjourned the hearing on the request of the applicant.
Subsequently,
the court held hearings on the following dates: 28 March, 15 May
and 25 August 2008.
On
20 January 2009 the Świecie District Court sentenced the
applicant to one year and three months' imprisonment. It appears that
the applicant failed to appeal and the judgment became final.
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a
complaint with the Bydgoszcz Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy)
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”). He sought a ruling
that the length of the proceedings before the Gliwice District Court
had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of
15,000 Polish zlotys (PLN).
On
8 July 2008 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court dismissed the
applicant's complaint.
The court found that the Świecie
District Court had undertaken the necessary steps to conclude the
proceedings. The court stressed, in particular, that the
applicant had failed to demonstrate the unjustified inactivity on the
part of the trial court. Instead, he had generally only claimed that
the proceeding had lasted too long.
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 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 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 ... any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
The
Government failed to submit any observations on the case.
The period to be taken into consideration began on an
unspecified date at the beginning of 1999 and ended on 20 January
2009. It thus lasted some ten years for one level of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
The
Court notes that the 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
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 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). Furthermore, the Court
considers that, in dismissing the applicant's complaint that the
proceedings in his case exceeded a reasonable time, the Bydgoszcz
Regional Court failed to apply standards which were in conformity
with the principles embodied in the Court's case-law (see Majewski
v. Poland, no. 52690/99, § 36, 11 October 2005).
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
applicant requested the Court that compensation be granted for
non-pecuniary damage, without however specifying its exact amount.
The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
The
Court, ruling on an equitable basis, awards the applicant EUR 8,000
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
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 applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 8,000
(eight thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any
tax that may be chargeable to be converted into the currency of the
respondent State 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 June 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President
