[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF KARPOW v. POLAND
(Application
no. 3429/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
26
February 2008
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 Karpow v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Josep
Casadevall,
Stanislav Pavlovschi,
Lech
Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Ján
Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä, judges,
and
Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 29 January 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 3429/03) 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, Mr Stanisław
Karpow (“the applicant”), on 6 November 2001.
- The Polish Government (“the Government”)
were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
- On
8 January 2007 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 1935 and lives in Warsaw.
A. Proceedings for divorce
- On
25 March 1987 the applicant filed for a no-fault divorce.
- On
22 April 1987 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy)
held a reconciliation session with the participation of the applicant
and his wife.
- On
11 May 1987 the applicant modified his petition and requested that
the divorce be granted on the grounds of his wife's fault.
- The
Warsaw District Court held two more reconciliation sessions. On
30 December 1987 it decided on the applicant's contact rights
with his minor child.
- On
8 March 1988 the Warsaw District Court ordered the applicant to
undergo a psychiatric observation.
- Forty-five
hearings were scheduled between November 1988 and March 1997.
However, twenty-four of them were adjourned and one was cancelled.
Two hearings were adjourned due to the applicant's stay in a
psychiatric hospital for observation. Two hearings were adjourned in
connection with the examination of the applicant's challenge to the
impartiality of the presiding judge. One hearing was adjourned at the
parties' request. One hearing was adjourned because the applicant's
wife was abroad. Eighteen hearings were adjourned due to the absence
of one of the parties. Finally, one hearing was cancelled since the
presiding judge was ill.
- On
16 May 1990 the Warsaw District Court issued an order determining the
use of the matrimonial home and payment of child maintenance.
- On
7 June 1993 the court referred the spouses for counselling at the
Family Diagnostic and Consultation Centre (Rodzinny Ośrodek
Diagnostyczno-Konsultacyjny).
- On
26 March 1997 the Warsaw District Court granted a divorce on the
ground of the fault of both spouses. The court also ruled on custody
rights and child maintenance. The applicant appealed.
- On
6 November 1997 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy)
quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the
District Court.
- Following
amendments to the applicable law, the Regional Court assumed
jurisdiction to examine the case. The total number of hearings held
in the renewed proceedings has not been specified by the applicant.
It appears that the applicant lodged two challenges to the
impartiality of a judge. They were dismissed by the Warsaw Regional
Court on 10 and 25 September 2002 respectively.
- On
29 January 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court granted a divorce on the
ground of the fault of both spouses. The applicant appealed.
- On
an unspecified date the applicant asked for an exemption from court
fees in the appeal proceedings. On 23 April 2004 the Warsaw Regional
Court refused his request. On 9 June 2004 the applicant lodged an
interlocutory appeal against that decision and asked for a full or
partial exemption from court fees. It appears that the applicant was
asked to complete his appeal and that, ultimately, he was granted the
exemption sought.
- On
9 February 2006 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny)
dismissed the applicant's appeal against the first-instance judgment.
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
- On
14 March 2005 the applicant complained about the length of the
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
12 May 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal 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 date of entry into force of the 2004 Act
(17 September 2004) and the date on which the applicant filed
the complaint (14 March 2005). The Warsaw Court of Appeal found that
the impugned proceedings were progressing without any undue delays.
It was noted that on 29 January 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court had
delivered a judgment and that the case was pending on appeal. It was
emphasised that any delay in the appeal proceedings was attributable
to the applicant who had twice applied for an exemption from court
fees on the basis of incomplete information.
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
- 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 25 March 1987. However,
the period to be taken into consideration only began 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 9 February 2006. It thus lasted twelve
years and nine months at three 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).
In
cases relating to civil status, what is at stake for the applicant is
a relevant consideration, and special diligence is required in view
of the possible consequences which the excessive length of
proceedings may have, notably on enjoyment of the right to respect
for family life (see Laino v. Italy [GC], no. 3158/96, §
18, ECHR 1999-I).
- 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 had exceeded a reasonable time, the Warsaw
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.
II. 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 7,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government submitted that the claim was excessive.
- The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary
damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards award him EUR 7,000
under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 1,500 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court and EUR 8,000 for those incurred before the domestic
courts.
- 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 rejects the claim
for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings and considers it
reasonable to award the applicant, who was unrepresented, 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 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 7,000 (seven thousand euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage and EUR 100 (one hundred euros) in respect of
costs and expenses, 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
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 26 February 2008,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
