[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF KRZYCH AND GURBIERZ v. POLAND
(Application
no. 35615/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13
February 2007
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 Krzych and Gurbierz v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,
Mr G.
Bonello,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr L.
Garlicki,
Mrs L. Mijović,
Mr J. Šikuta,
Mrs P. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 23 January 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 35615/03) 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 two Polish nationals, Mr Władysław
Krzych and Mr Tadeusz Gurbierz (“the applicants”),
on 31 October 2003.
- The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Agent Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs.
- On
1 September 2005 the
President of the Fourth Section decided to communicate the
applicant’s complaint concerning the length of proceedings 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
I.THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicants were born in 1942 and 1946 respectively and live
in Rybnik, Poland.
- In
1992 and 1993 the prosecutor conducted an investigation in connection
with the applicants’ allegedly illegal business activities.
- On
16 December 1993 they were charged with fraud.
- In
July 1994 the applicants were indicted before the Katowice Regional
Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).
- On
18 October 1994 the trial court held the first hearing.
- In
1995 the court held nine hearings. Some of them were adjourned or
cancelled due to the absence of witnesses. In 1996, 1997 and 1998
the trial court scheduled numerous hearings. However, most of them
were either adjourned due to the absence of witnesses or cancelled.
- On
10 December 1998 the Katowice Regional Court gave judgment. The court
convicted the applicants and sentenced them to suspended prison terms
of one year and six months and two years respectively.
- The
applicants appealed against the judgment.
- The
Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) held one
hearing on 27 April 2000 and on the same date gave judgment. The
court quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case.
- On
6 September 2000 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy)
held the first hearing.
- In
January 2001 the court decided that the Gliwice Regional Court was
competent to examine the case.
- The
trial court held hearings in May, July and November 2001.
Subsequently, hearings were held at year-long intervals: in
October 2002 and September 2003. The hearing in September 2003
was held before the Racibórz District Court (Sąd
Rejonowy) to which, in the meantime, the case had been
transferred.
- The
Racibórz District Court held several hearings and on
28 September 2004 it gave judgment. The trial court convicted
the applicants but reduced the suspended prison terms to which they
had been sentenced.
- The
applicants appealed.
- On
2 November 2004 the applicants lodged with the Katowice Court of
Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) a complaint about a breach of the
right to have their case heard within a reasonable time. They relied
on the 2004 Act on complaints about a breach of the right to a
trial within a reasonable time. On 14 December 2004 the Katowice
Court of Appeal dismissed the complaints. The court examined the
course of the impugned proceedings only as regards the period between
2002 and 2004 when the case had been pending before the District
Court and established that the proceedings had been conducted
diligently. It further held that the trial courts could not be held
responsible for delays caused by the absence of witnesses or illness
of the parties.
- On
21 February 2005 the Gliwice Regional Court dismissed their appeal
against the judgment of 28 September 2004. The judgment is final.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The
relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the
excessive length of judicial proceedings 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 ARTICLES 6 § 1
AND 7 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNFAIRNESS OF THE
PROCEEDINGS
- The
applicants first complained that the proceedings in their case had
been unfair. In particular, they alleged that the courts had
committed errors of fact and law. This complaint falls to be examined
under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in its
relevant part, reads:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a]
... tribunal...”
- The
Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the
Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements
undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In
particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law
allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they
may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention.
- In
the present case the applicants did not allege any particular failure
to respect his right to a fair hearing on the part of the relevant
courts. Indeed, their complaints are limited to a challenge to their
allegedly wrongful conviction. Assessing the circumstances of the
case as a whole, the Court finds no indication that the impugned
proceedings were conducted unfairly.
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.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNREASONABLE LENGTH OF PROCEEDINGS
- The
applicants 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
applicants submitted that they had been charged on 16 December
1993. The Government did not contest that date. However, they
submitted that the proceedings at issue started on 18 October1994
when the first hearing took place. Having regard to its extensive
case law on the subject, the Court considers that the period to
be taken into consideration began on 16 December 1993 when the
applicants were charged, and ended on 21 February 2005 when the
Gliwice Regional Court dismissed their appeal. It thus lasted 11
years, 2 months and 9 days 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 applicants and the relevant authorities (see,
among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France
[GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999 II)
- 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 Pélissier and Sassi, cited above).
Furthermore, the Court considers that, in dismissing the applicants’
complaint that the proceedings in their case had exceeded a
reasonable time, the Katowice Court of Appeal 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
applicants claimed in total over 700,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in
respect of pecuniary damage. They also claimed PLN 54,000 each
in respect of non pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested their claims.
- 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 each of the applicants 6,000 euros
(EUR) in respect of non pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicants also claimed over PLN 80,000 for the costs and
expenses incurred before the domestic courts and before the Court.
- The
Government contested these claims.
- 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 are
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
considers it reasonable to award to each of the two applicants, who
were not represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 100 covering
costs under all heads.
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 each applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts, to be converted into Polish zlotys at the rate applicable at
the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 6,000
(six thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 100
(one hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses;
(iii) any
tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(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 applicants’
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 February 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules
of Court.
T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
