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 >>
JUREWICZ v. POLAND - 18500/10 [2011] ECHR 1069 (5 July 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1069.html
Cite as:
[2011] ECHR 1069
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF JUREWICZ v. POLAND
(Application
no. 18500/10)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 July
2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Jurewicz v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as
a Committee composed of:
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Vincent
A. De Gaetano,
judges,
and
Fatoş Aracı,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 14 June 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 18500/10) 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 Mariusz
Jurewicz (“the applicant”), on 12 March 2010.
The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs.
On
6 September 2010 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
applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Warsaw.
A. First set of criminal proceedings against the
applicant
On
19 April 2006 the applicant was charged with an unspecified offence.
On
9 August 2006 the Prosecutor changed the original charges and charged
the applicant with aggravated extortion. The applicant was
additionally charged with drug trafficking committed between 2002 and
2003 in Warsaw.
On
3 January 2007 the prosecution lodged
a bill of indictment with the Warsaw Regional Court
(Sąd Okręgowy). The applicant was indicted
as charged. The bill of indictment comprised charges against 17
accused.
On
21 May 2007 the court held the first hearing.
Hearings
scheduled for 9, 10 and 18 July 2007 were adjourned because of the
applicant’s counsel illness.
Between
May 2007 and February 2010 the trial court held some 30 hearings.
On
three occasions the applicant unsuccessfully sought the withdrawal of
the judge dealing with his case.
The
proceedings are still pending before the Warsaw Regional Court.
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
On
22 December 2009 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw Court of Appeal
(Sąd Apelacyjny) a complaint under section 5 of the Law
of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right
to an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor
and to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na
naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu
przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i
postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki)
(“the 2004 Act”).
On
23 February 2010 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s
complaint stating that that the proceedings had been conducted with
the requisite speed and without undue delay.
C. Second set of criminal proceedings against the
applicant
On
30 March 2009 the Warsaw Regional Court convicted the applicant of
drug trafficking committed between 2002 and 2003 in Łowicz.
On
9 December 2010 the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld the first instance
court judgment.
D. Third set of criminal proceedings against the
applicant and proceedings for retrospective leave
On
8 January 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of vehicle
break-in and theft.
On
14 January 2004 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy)
convicted the applicant of vehicle break-in and theft and
sentenced him to three years’ and six months’
imprisonment.
On
20 May 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s
appeal against this judgment.
On
17 April 2009 the applicant requested the Warsaw Regional Court
to appoint a legal-aid lawyer with a view to lodging a cassation
appeal.
On
6 February 2010 the legal-aid lawyer informed the applicant that
he had not found any grounds for lodging a cassation appeal.
On
an unspecified date, the applicant requested the court for leave
to lodge a cassation appeal out of time and to appoint another
legal-aid lawyer with a view to lodging a cassation appeal.
On
1 April 2010 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s
request finding no basis for retrospective leave. It further refused
to appoint another legal-aid lawyer.
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 first set 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 contested that argument.
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 19 April 2006 and has
not yet ended. It has thus lasted five years and one month at one
level 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
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 firstly observes that the case could be considered complex,
regard being had to the fact that it involved a number of defendants
and voluminous evidence. However, it considers that this in itself
cannot justify the overall length of the proceedings.
As
regards the conduct of the applicant, the Court observes that on
three occasions the applicant sought the withdrawal of the judge
dealing with his case (see paragraph 11 above), it cannot however be
established that the applicant substantially contributed to the
delays in the proceedings.
With
respect to the conduct of the authorities, the Court considers that
the investigation was completed by the
prosecution authorities within a relatively short period of
time. The Court further notes that between May 2007 and February
2010 the trial court held only 30 hearings that is less than one
hearing per month (see paragraph 10 above).
The
Court would point out that the duty to administer justice
expeditiously was incumbent in the first place on the domestic
authorities. Notwithstanding the significant difficulties which they
faced in the present case due to its complexity, the domestic
authorities were required to organise the trial efficiently and
ensure that the Convention guarantees were fully respected in the
proceedings. Moreover, the Court notes that the proceedings, which
have already lasted five years and one month, are still pending
before the first-instance court.
Having
regard to all the circumstances of the case and the overall length of
the proceedings, the Court considers that the reasonable time
requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention has not been
respected. Consequently, there has been a violation of this
provision.
II. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
Invoking
Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant further complained about
the unfairness of the third set of the criminal proceedings against
him. The Court notes that the applicant failed to lodge a cassation
appeal against the second-instance court judgment. It follows that
this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and
4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
The
applicant also alleged that by dismissing his request for a
leave to lodge a cassation appeal out of time the Warsaw
Regional Court denied him access to a court. The Court notes that the
applicant failed to lodge an interlocutory appeal against that
decision. It follows that this complaint must also be rejected under
Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for
non exhaustion of domestic remedies.
The
applicant complained that the charge of drug trafficking in the first
set criminal proceedings infringed his right not to be tried twice
for the same offence, insofar as he had been tried and convicted for
the same offence in the second set of criminal proceedings. The Court
notes that the applicant was tried twice for the offence of drug
trafficking which he had however committed in different cities (see
paragraphs 6 and 15 above). It follows
that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must
be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the
Convention.
Finally, in its letter of 20 September 2010, the
applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that during
his arrest on 8 January 2003 he was beaten by a police officer. It
follows that this complaint has been introduced out of time and must
be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1
and 4 of the Convention.
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
applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and
non pecuniary damage.
The
Government contested these claims as exorbitant.
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 the applicant EUR 3,000 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 complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
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,
EUR 3,000 (three thousand 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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 July 2011, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Zdravka Kalaydjieva
Deputy
Registrar President
