[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF MACIEJ v. POLAND
(Application
no. 10838/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27
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 Maciej 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,
Ms L.
Mijović,
Mr J. Šikuta,
Mrs P. Hirvelä,
judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 6 February 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 10838/02) 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,
Mr Tadeusz Maciej (“the applicant”), on 24 May
2001.
- The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs.
- On
4 March 2006 the Court
decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Applying
Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule
on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Radom.
- On
4 February 1993 the applicant was charged with acting as a procurer
of prostitution.
- On
15 October 1993 the Radom District Prosecutor filed a bill of
indictment against the applicant with the Radom District Court.
- The
hearing set for 6 June 1994 was cancelled due to the applicant’s
absence. Subsequently several hearings were cancelled. In particular,
hearings scheduled for 4 July 1994, 22 September 1994,
3 November 1994 and 2 February 1995 were cancelled due
to the absence of one of the co accused. Seven hearings
scheduled between 21 July 1995 and 7 February 1996
were cancelled for various procedural reasons. On 18 July 1996
the court held a hearing.
- Between
20 February 1997 and 25 February 1999 the court held
sixteen hearings at regular intervals of six weeks.
- On
23 September 1999, 5 October 1999 and 18 October 1999 the
court held further hearings.
- On
25 October 1999 the Radom District Court gave judgment and convicted
the applicant as charged. The court also sentenced the applicant to 1
year’s imprisonment stayed for 2 years.
- On
an unknown later date the applicant appealed against this judgment.
- On
8 December 2000 the Radom Regional Court held a hearing and gave
judgment. The court upheld the first instance sentence and
dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
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 200 V
and Ratajczyk v. Poland no. 11215/02 (dec.),
ECHR 2005 VIII and its 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 UNFAIRNESS OF THE PROCEEDINGS
- The
applicant first complained that the proceedings in his case were
unfair. In particular, he alleged errors of fact and law committed by
the courts. He alleged a breach of Articles 6 §§ 3
and 7 of the Convention. 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...”
- However,
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.
Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right
to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the
admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are
therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the
national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no.
30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, with further references).
- In
the present case the applicant did not allege any particular failure
to respect his right to a fair hearing on the part of the relevant
courts. Indeed, his complaints are limited to challenging his
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
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.
- Although
the applicant was charged on 4 February 1993, the period
to be taken into consideration began only on 1 May 1993, when
the recognition by Poland of the right of individual petition took
effect. However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that
elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of
proceedings at the time. The period in question ended on 8 December
2000. It thus lasted 7 years and 6 months for two levels of
jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Government raised a preliminary objection that the applicant had not
exhausted domestic remedies available to him under Polish law, as
required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They
maintained that from 17 September 2004, the date of entry into
force of the 2004 Act, the applicant had a possibility of seeking
compensation for any damage resulting from the excessive length of
proceedings before Polish courts, under section 16 of the 2004 Act
read in conjunction with Article 417 of the Civil Code.
- However, the Court has already held that the civil
action relied on by the Government cannot be regarded as an effective
remedy with a sufficient degree of certainty in cases where the
three year limitation period for the State’s liability in
tort expired before the entry into force of the 2004 Act on
17 September 2004 (see Ratajczyk v. Poland; (dec),
11215/02, 31 May 2005, Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01,
§ 45, 30 May 2006). The present case belongs to this group
of applications as the proceedings at issue ended on 8 December 2000,
which is more than three years before the 2004 Act had come into
force. It follows that the Government’s plea of inadmissibility
on the ground of non exhaustion of domestic remedies must be
dismissed.
- The
Court further 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 (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).
- 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 PLN 37,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and PLN
40,000 for non pecuniary damage that he allegedly had suffered
due to the protracted length of the proceedings and length of his
detention on remand.
- 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.
The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained
non pecuniary such as distress and frustration resulting from
the protracted length of the proceedings. Ruling on an equitable
basis, it awards award him EUR 3,000 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed PLN 3,000 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and for those incurred before the Court.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- 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
rejects the claim.
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 3,000
(three thousand euros) in respect of non pecuniary damage, to be
converted into Polish zlotys at the rate applicable at the date of
the settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable on the above
amount;
(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 27 February 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules
of Court.
T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
