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 >>
GUT v. POLAND - 32440/08 [2011] ECHR 49 (18 January 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/49.html
Cite as:
[2011] ECHR 49
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF GUT v. POLAND
(Application
no. 32440/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 January
2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Gut v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Ján Šikuta,
President,
Lech Garlicki,
Vincent A. de Gaetano,
judges,
and Fatoş
Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 14 December 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 32440/08) 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 Henryk Gut
(“the applicant”), on 30 June 2008.
The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
On
12 January 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 1958 and lives in Biskupiec.
A. Criminal proceedings against the applicant (charges
of arson)
On
19 June 2002 the applicant was arrested on charges of arson and
uttering threats. On an unknown later date he was indicted before the
Biskupiec District Court.
Between
19 March and 19 June 2006 the applicant was detained on remand.
On
3 June 2003 the District Court convicted him as charged and sentenced
him to three years' imprisonment.
On
26 June 2003 the applicant appealed against his conviction.
On
16 October 2003 the Olsztyn Regional Court quashed the judgment and
remitted the case.
Between
19 October 2005 and 29 March 2006 the District Court held seven
hearings. On several occasions the applicant who was duly summoned,
refused to appear at hearings. However, the court proceeded with the
trial in his absence.
On
31 March 2006 the Biskupiec District Court convicted the applicant as
charged and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment.
On
14 September 2006 the Olsztyn Regional Court again quashed the
judgment and remitted the case.
On
3 June 2009 the Gizycko District Court again convicted the applicant
as charged.
On
27 July 2009 the applicant filed his appeal against this judgment. It
appears that the proceedings are pending before the Olsztyn Regional
Court.
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
On
16 and 21 August 2007 the applicant lodged complaints with the
Białystok Court of Appeal under 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”).
The applicant sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings
before the Olsztyn Regional Court had been excessive and an award of
just satisfaction.
On
7 November 2007 the Court of Appeal gave a decision and dismissed the
applicant's complaint.
On
19 June 2008 the Olsztyn Regional Court dismissed yet another
complaint under 2004 Act lodged by the applicant. The court
considered that there had been no significant delays in the
proceedings.
C. Other proceedings against the applicant
The
applicant was also involved in several other sets of criminal and
civil proceedings, in particular, proceedings concerning assaulting a
judge and contempt of court. The proceedings were terminated
respectively on 24 October 2005 and 14 March 2007 by the Olsztyn
Regional Court.
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. THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THE APPLICATION
UNDER ARTICLE 37 OF THE CONVENTION
On 25 October 2010 the Government submitted a
unilateral declaration similar to that in the case of Tahsin Acar
v. Turkey ((preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95,
ECHR 2003-VI) and informed the Court that they were ready to accept
that there had been a violation of the applicant's rights under
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as a result of the unreasonable
length of criminal proceedings against the applicant. In respect of
non pecuniary damage, the Government proposed to award the
applicant 7,000 Polish zlotys (PLN). The Government invited the Court
to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the
Convention. The applicant objected to the proposal.
The Court observes that, as it has already held on
many occasions, it may be appropriate under certain circumstances to
strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the
Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by the respondent
Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case
to be continued. It will depend on the particular circumstances
whether the unilateral declaration offers a sufficient basis for
finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention
and its Protocols does not require the Court to continue its
examination of the case (see Tahsin Acar, cited above,
§ 75; and Melnic v. Moldova, no. 6923/03, § 22,
14 November 2006).
According to the Court's case-law, the amount
proposed in a unilateral declaration may be considered a
sufficient basis for striking out an application or part thereof. The
Court will have regard in this connection to the compatibility of the
amount with its own awards in similar length of proceedings cases,
bearing in mind the principles which it has developed for determining
victim status and for assessing the amount of non-pecuniary
compensation to be awarded where it has found a breach of the
reasonable-time requirement (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC],
no. 64886/01, §§ 85-107, ECHR 2006-...; Scordino
v. Italy (no.1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 193-215,
ECHR-2006-...; and Dubjakova v. Slovakia (dec.),
no. 67299/01, 10 October 2004).
On
the facts and for the reasons set out above, in particular the amount
of compensation proposed , the Court finds that the Government have
failed to provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for
human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not
require it to continue its examination of the case (see, conversely,
Spółka z o.o. WAZA v. Poland (striking out), no.
11602/02, 26 June 2007).
This
being so, the Court rejects the Government's request to strike the
application out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the
Convention and will accordingly pursue its examination of the
admissibility and merits of the case.
II. 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 contested that argument.
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 19 June 2002 and has
not yet ended. It has thus already lasted eight years and four 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
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).
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 and the overall length
of the proceedings, 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.
III. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
Lastly,
without invoking any provisions of the Convention, the applicant
complained that he had been persecuted by the judicial authorities.
He also complained about the outcome of the proceedings concerning
assault of the judge.
The
Court finds that the facts of the case do not disclose any appearance
of a violation of the Convention. It follows that these complaints
are manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3
and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
IV. 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 500,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government contested the claim.
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 3,600 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
Rejects
the Government's request to strike the application out of its list;
Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the criminal proceedings concerning charges of arson
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 3,600 (three thousand six 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;
Dismisses
the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done
in English, and notified in writing on 18 January 2011, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Ján Šikuta
Deputy
Registrar President
