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 >>
WINEROWICZ v. POLAND - 4382/10 [2011] ECHR 984 (21 June 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/984.html
Cite as:
[2011] ECHR 984
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF WINEROWICZ v. POLAND
(Application
no. 4382/10)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 June
2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Winerowicz 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 31 May 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 4382/10) 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 Dariusz Winerowicz
(“the applicant”), on 8 January 2010.
The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs.
On
7 July 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 1957 and lives in Gdańsk.
A. Main proceedings
On
16 April 1998 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody.
On
1 April 1999 the applicant was released from pre-trial detention.
On
12 January 2000 the prosecution
lodged a bill of indictment with the Gdańsk District
Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The applicant was charged with
several counts of receiving and counterfeit. The bill of indictment
comprised charges against 19 accused.
In the proceedings the Gdańsk District Court
scheduled some thirty eight hearings. At least sixteen of them were
adjourned. On many occasions the court did not give
any reasons for adjournment decisions.
The
proceedings are still pending before the Gdańsk District Court.
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
On
an unspecified date the applicant lodged with the Gdańsk
Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) 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
16 July 2009 the Gdańsk Regional Court confirmed that the
proceedings in question had indeed been lengthy. The court stated,
inter alia, that on at least three occasions the Gdańsk
District Court had adjourned hearings without giving reasons for its
decision. It further stated that on eight occasions the hearings
had lasted less than two hours, which taking into account the number
of co-accused and difficulties in scheduling a date convenient to all
the participants, was proof of bad organisation of the proceedings on
the part of the Gdańsk District Court. Furthermore, the court
held that on numerous occasions hearings had been adjourned as some
of the co–accused had participated on these dates in
another set of proceedings or because prison authorities had been
given too short notice to organise transport of the accused from a
remand centre to the courtroom. The court also pointed out that the
Gdańsk District Court did not apply any disciplinary measures
against the co-accused who systematically failed to appear for
hearings. Finally, the Gdańsk Regional Court stated that the
intervals between the hearings had been too significant; in
particular on one occasion the Gdańsk District Court had
adjourned a hearing for a period of one year without submitting
exceptional reasons for its decision as required by the code of
criminal procedure. According to the Gdańsk Regional Court, it
resulted from the above that the Gdańsk District Court had
significantly contributed to the excessive length of the proceedings.
The Gdańsk Regional Court did not, however, examine the
period prior to the entry into force of the 2004 Act.
The
court awarded the applicant 1,000 Polish zlotys (PLN)
(approx. 250 euros (EUR)) in just satisfaction. Referring
to the amount of just satisfaction, the court held that having regard
to the circumstances of the case, the amount of money awarded to him
was adequate and compatible with the “social sense of justice”.
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. THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THE APPLICATION
UNDER ARTICLE 37 OF THE CONVENTION
On
14 March 2011 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration
similar to that in the case 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 the proceedings
in which the applicant had been involved. In respect of
non-pecuniary damage, the Government proposed to award the applicant
PLN 15,000 (the equivalent of approx. EUR 3,750). The Government
invited the Court to strike out the application in accordance with
Article 37 of the Convention.
The
applicant did not agree with the Government's proposal maintaining
that the amount offered was too low.
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 refrained from submitting any
observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint.
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 16 April 1998
and has not yet ended. It has thus lasted thirteen years for 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 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, by not taking into account the overall period
of the proceedings, the Gdańsk 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.
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 EUR 10,000 in respect of non–pecuniary
damage.
The
Government contested these claims as exorbitant.
The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non pecuniary
damage on account of the unreasonable length of the criminal
proceedings against him. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him
the full sum claimed.
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,
EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable,
in respect of non pecuniary damage, 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 June 2011, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Zdravka Kalaydjieva Deputy Registrar President
