BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF KĘDRA v. POLAND
(Application no. 1564/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 October 2006
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 Kędra v. Poland,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,
Mr J. Casadevall,
Mr G.
Bonello,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr L.
Garlicki,
Ms L. Mijović, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 September 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The case originated in an
application (no. 1564/02) 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, Mrs Joanna
Kędra (“the applicant”), on 19 December 2001.
- The Polish Government were represented by their Agent,
Mr J. Wołąsiewicz, of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
- On 1 September 2005 the President of the Fourth Section
decided to communicate the application to the Government. Under the
provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it was
decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as
its admissibility.
THE FACTS
- The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Warsaw.
5. On 2 December 1998 the
applicant lodged with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd
Rejonowy) a civil action against her former employer in which she
requested the annulment of a disciplinary penalty. Subsequently, the
applicant was dismissed. In January 1999 she lodged a second
claim against her former employer in which she asked for
reinstatement.
- On 25 June 1999 the court decided to join both cases.
- The hearings to be held on 10 December 1999 and
12 January 2000 were adjourned.
- Subsequently, hearings were held in September and
November 2000.
- The next hearing was held on 21 December 2001.
- In 2002 the Warsaw District Court held hearings on
18 March and 7 October.
- Subsequently, the court held hearings at regular
intervals. In 2003 it held in total four hearings. In 2004 eight
hearings were held; however, the majority of them were adjourned due
to the absence of the defendant or witnesses. On 13 January 2005 the
Warsaw District Court held a hearing.
- On 11 February 2005 the applicant lodged with the
Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) a complaint
about a breach of her right to have her case heard within a
reasonable time. She relied on the 2004 Act. On 17 March 2005
the Regional Court dismissed her complaint. The court examined the
course of the impugned proceedings and held that there were no delays
for which the District Court could be held responsible. Some delays
were caused by the actions of the defendant. The court finally held
that the case was complex. The decision was notified to the applicant
on 31 March 2005. The applicant was also informed that the
domestic law did not provide any appeal against the decision.
- On 11 April 2005 the court held a hearing and on
22 April 2005 it gave judgment. It ordered reinstatement of the
applicant and payment of her salary for the period of her
unemployment. The defendant appealed.
- On 1 December 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed
the appeal. The judgment thus became final.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- 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 his civil rights and
obligations ..., 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
2 December 1998 and ended on 1 December 2005. It thus lasted 7
years 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.
The Court notes that the proceedings before the court of the first
instance lasted 6 years and 5 months. It reiterates that
special diligence is necessary in employment disputes (Ruotolo v.
Italy, judgment of 27 February 1992, Series A
no. 230-D, p. 39, § 17). In this connection the Court
considers that the Warsaw Regional Court in dismissing the
applicant’s complaint that the length of the proceedings in her
case exceeded a reasonable time 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 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF
ARTICLES 6 § 2 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION
- The applicant further appeared to complain about a
violation of the principle of presumption of innocence and about the
outcome of the proceedings in that she had been unlawfully dismissed
from work.
- However, the Court finds that the applicant’s
assertions about violations of the above provisions of the Convention
are wholly unsubstantiated.
- It follows that these complaints are manifestly
ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35
§§ 3 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 158,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in
respect of pecuniary and PLN 284,000 in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The Government contested these claims and considered
them excessive.
- 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 4,000
euros (EUR) in respect of non pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The applicant also claimed PLN 271 (equivalent to EUR
70 on 20 April 2006, the date on which the claims were
submitted, in respect of costs and expenses). This sum covered costs
and expenses incurred before the domestic courts in the proceedings
concerning the complaint about a breach of her right to have her case
heard within a reasonable time as well as in the proceedings before
the Court.
- The Government left the matter to the Court’s
discretion.
- According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant
is entitled to reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so far
as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily
incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. In the present case,
regard being had to the information in its possession and the above
criteria, the Court considers that the sum claimed should be awarded
in full.
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 from the date on which the judgment becomes final
in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention, EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage and EUR 70 (seventy euros) in respect of costs
and expenses, 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
amounts 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 10 October 2006, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
