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 KYZIOŁ v. POLAND
(Application
no. 24203/05)
JUDGMENT
12
February 2008
STRASBOURG
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 Kyzioł v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas
Bratza,
President,
Josep
Casadevall,
Giovanni
Bonello,
Kristaq
Traja,
Stanislav
Pavlovschi,
Lech
Garlicki,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 22 January 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 24203/05) 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 Jarosław
Kyzioł (“the applicant”), on 17 June 2005.
- The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
- On
7 December 2006 the
President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to give notice
of the application 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 1969 and lives in Cracow.
1 Civil proceedings for dissolution of co-ownership
- On
28 October 1994 a housing co-operative filed with the Cracow District
Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a claim for dissolution of
co-ownership of five plots of land. The applicant is one of the
co-owners of the land in question and has his family house there.
There were 182 parties to the proceedings at the time when they were
first instituted. This number has since increased to 417.
- On
16 October 1997 the Cracow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy)
decided to join the case in question to a related case involving a
claim for the ascertainment of the ownership right to the same land,
and to examine them together.
- On
1 March 1999 the President of the Cracow District Court appointed an
expert in geodesy. On 19 July 1999 the court admitted his expert
report as evidence. On 1 July 2002 the President of the Cracow
District Court requested that the original report be updated. The
additional expert report was furnished in June 2003.
- On
20 November and 18 December 2003 respectively the court decided to
exclude two judges from dealing with the case. Moreover, on
18 December 2003 the Cracow District Court decided of its own
motion to stay the proceedings due to the deaths of several of the
parties, the need to ascertain the shares of their legal heirs and to
summon new parties.
- On
13 April 2006 the Cracow District Court resumed the proceedings since
the successors of the deceased parties had been summoned to
participate. However, in the same decision the court decided to stay
the proceedings due to new circumstances, namely the deaths of other
parties.
2. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
- On
15 December 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint about the
unreasonable length of proceedings under the Act 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
14 February 2006 the Cracow Regional Court dismissed the complaint.
The court held that the 2004 Act did not have retroactive effect and,
consequently it examined the applicant's claim only in respect of the
period between the entry into force of the 2004 Act on 17 September
2004 and the date on which the complaint had been lodged by the
applicant. The Cracow Regional Court found that the proceedings
remained stayed due to the objective obstacle posed by the deaths of
several of the parties and the delays caused by their legal heirs in
submitting inheritance titles. The domestic court also emphasised
that there was a considerable and ever-changing number of parties to
the proceedings.
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
28 June 2007 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration
similar to that in the case of Wawrzynowicz v. Poland
(no. 73192/01, 17 July 2007) and informed the Court that
they were ready to acknowledge 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 he had been involved. In respect of non-pecuniary damage,
the Government proposed to award the applicant 10,000 Polish zlotys
(PLN) (the equivalent of 2,600 euros (EUR)). 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. He considered
that the amount proposed did not constitute sufficient just
satisfaction for the damage he had sustained and requested the Court
to continue the examination of the application.
- The
Court has already addressed the issue of unilateral declarations and
laid down the criteria for deciding whether or not a case should be
struck out under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the
basis of a unilateral declaration by the respondent Government (see
Warzynowicz, cited above, §§ 31-36 and Tahsin
Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95,
§ 74-77, ECHR 2003 VI).
- The
Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and
extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under
Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the
right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others,
Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, 21 September
2004, and Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, 13 July
2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing
appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this
right (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR
2000 XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR
2005 ... (extracts); Charzyński v. Poland (dec.),
no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005 ...; Majewski v. Poland,
no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Cocchiarella v.
Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006 ...). Where the
Court has found a breach of these Articles it has awarded just
satisfaction, the amount of which depended on the particular features
of the case.
- As
to whether it would be appropriate to strike out the present
application on the basis of the unilateral declaration made by the
Government, the Court notes in the first place that the applicant's
complaint concerned the excessive length of the civil proceedings.
The Court further observes that the proceedings were instituted on
28 October 1994 and since then they have been pending before the
first-instance court. On 13 April 2006 the trial court decided
to stay the proceedings. Moreover, the relevant Polish remedies
against excessive length of proceedings introduced in 2004 proved
either not applicable or not effective in the circumstances of the
present case (see paragraph 25). Consequently, no other remedy for
the alleged violation is possible at this stage.
- Further,
the Court notes that although the Government acknowledged in their
unilateral declaration that the domestic proceedings had been
unreasonably lengthy, they did not, however, offer him adequate
redress. The Court considers that the sum proposed in the declaration
in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant as a
result of the alleged violation of the Convention does not bear a
reasonable relationship to the amounts awarded by the Court in
similar cases for non-pecuniary damage (see Wawrzynowicz,
cited above, §§ 38-40).
- 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
- 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 refrained from raising any argument in this connection.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 28 October 1994 and
has not yet ended. It has thus lasted over twelve 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, in dismissing the applicant's complaint that the
proceedings in his case exceeded a reasonable time, the Cracow
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 PLN 30,000 (the equivalent of EUR 8,400) in respect
of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
- The
Court considers that it should award the full amount claimed.
B. Costs and expenses
- The applicant also claimed PLN 10,000 (the equivalent
of EUR 2,600) for the costs and expenses incurred before the
domestic courts alone.
- The Government did not express an opinion on the
matter.
- 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 rejects the claim
for costs and expenses in the domestic 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
- Rejects the Government's request to strike the
application out of the list;
- 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
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 8,400
(eight thousand four hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into the
currency of the respondent State 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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 February 2008,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President
