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 KREMPA-CZUCHRYTA v. POLAND
(Application
no. 11184/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
3
July 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 Krempa-Czuchryta 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 12 June 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 11184/03) 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 a Polish national, Mrs Ewa Krempa-Czuchryta (“the
applicant”), on 10 September 2001.
- The
applicant was not legally represented. The Polish
Government (“the Government”) were represented by their
Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
- On
26 June 2006 the
President of the Fourth Section decided to communicate the complaint
concerning the length of the proceedings to the Government. Applying
Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it was 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 1968 and lives in Lublin.
A. Facts prior to 1 May 1993
- On
2 May 1990 the applicant asked the Rzeszów District Court to
declare that she had been the beneficiary of an inheritance from a
certain M.K. on the basis of a will made before a notary on
24 February 1975.
- On
27 September 1990 the other party to the proceedings, a certain W.B.,
lodged her own inheritance claim and asked the same court to declare
that she had received an inheritance from her sister – M.K. –
on the basis of the above-mentioned will made before a notary on
21 November 1988.
- On
12 November 1990 a hearing was held. The applicant asked for the
annulment of a will made on 21 November 1988 in favour W.B.
- On
15 March 1991 a psychiatric opinion (opinia sądowo psychiatryczna)
concerning the testator's state of health between 1975 and 1988 was
obtained.
- At
hearings scheduled between 1 October 1992 and
1 February 1993 evidence was heard from over 20 witnesses.
B. Facts after 30 April 1993
- On
29 October 1994 the court obtained a second psychiatric opinion
prepared by an expert from the Lublin Medical Academy (Akademia
Medyczna).
- On
10 February 1995 the Rzeszów District Court asked the Poznań
Medical Academy for an expert report to be prepared by the Institute
of Psychiatry – the so-called “institute opinion”
(opinia instytucjonalna).
- On
20 April 1995 the Poznań Medical Academy informed the Rzeszów
District Court about the state of preparation of the report.
- On
10 July 1995 the Poznań Medical Academy informed the Rzeszów
District Court that, due to the holiday season, it was not possible
to prepare the above-mentioned “institute opinion”. It
asked the Rzeszów District Court whether it would accept an
expert opinion given by two experts in psychiatry.
- On
21 July 1995 the President of the Rzeszów District Court
agreed.
- The
opinion was submitted on 8 May 1996.
- The
fourth expert's report in the case was submitted on
24 September 1997.
- At
a hearing held on 23 December 1997 the Rzeszów District Court
gave a decision. It was served on the applicant's lawyer on
27 January 1998.
- On
24 February 1998 the applicant appealed.
- The
appeal was dismissed by the Rzeszów Regional Court on
12 May 1998. The decision was served on the applicant on
15 June 1998.
- On
14 July 1998 the applicant's lawyer lodged a cassation appeal. It was
referred to the Supreme Court on 29 October 1998.
- On
13 March 2001 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the cassation
appeal as no important legal issue arose in the case.
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. 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 her case had been
unfair. In particular, she alleged that the domestic courts had
incorrectly assessed the evidence. She alleged a breach of Article 6
§ 1 of the Convention, which, in its relevant part, reads:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., 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 her right to a fair hearing on the part of the relevant
courts. Indeed, her complaints are limited to a challenge to the
result of the proceedings. 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 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 his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
- The
Court notes that the proceedings commenced on 2 May 1990. However,
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. Nevertheless, 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 13 March 2001. It thus lasted 7 years,
10 months and 14 days at three court instances.
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
the 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, cited above; and 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 13 March 2001, 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 also
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. In particular the Court notes that there was an
approximately 33-month period of inactivity in the proceedings before
the Supreme Court between the date of referring the applicant's
cassation appeal and the delivery of the judgment. The
Court observes that, in the face of increasing pressure at
the material time on the Supreme Court's case-processing capacity,
the authorities subsequently took the necessary
remedial action in order to deal with this problem (see Kępa
v. Poland (dec.), no. 43978/98,
30 September 2003). That being said , in
the present case the applicant's cassation appeal lay dormant in the
Supreme Court for nearly 33 months, which constitutes an
unreasonable delay (see Domańska v. Poland,
no. 74073/01, § 32, 25 May 2004).
- 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 255,186 Polish zlotys (PLN) in respect of pecuniary
damage and PLN 50,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested these 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 the applicant 2,500 euros (EUR) in respect
of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed PLN 3,350 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and PLN 424,86 for those incurred 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 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
for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings and considers it
reasonable to award to the applicant, who was not represented by a
lawyer, the sum of EUR 100 for the proceedings before the Court.
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, the following
amounts, to be converted into Polish zlotys at the rate applicable at
the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 2,500
(two thousand five hundred 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 applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 July 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
