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 FLOREK v. POLAND
(Application
no. 20334/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20 May
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 Florek v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas
Bratza,
President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Giovanni
Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
David
Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján
Šikuta,
Ledi
Bianku, judges,
and
Lawrence Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 29 April 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 20334/04) 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 Elżbieta Florek (“the
applicant”), on 26 May 2004.
- The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
- On
12 March 2007 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 1950 and lives in Szczecin.
A. Main proceedings
- On
27 June 1995 the applicant lodged a statement of claim with the
Goleniów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).
- On
26 October 1995 the Goleniów District Court found that it
lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case and referred it to the
Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).
- On
12 December 1995 the applicant was ordered to rectify certain
procedural shortcomings in her claim in order to fulfil the formal
requirements set out in Polish law. She complied with the court's
order in December 1995.
- At
a hearing on 22 March 1996 the defendant lodged a counterclaim. On an
unknown date in April 1996 the applicant submitted her reply to the
counterclaim.
- Between
12 February and 14 November 1997 the court held five hearings.
- On
1 December 1997 the Szczecin Regional Court delivered its judgment.
- On
5 December 1997 the applicant lodged a notice of appeal.
On 27 March 1998 she was served with the court's
statement of reasons.
- The
case was referred to the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd
Apelacyjny) in August 1998. On 7 March 2000 the court
partly amended the judgment and remitted the case in part.
- On
12 June 2000 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme
Court (Sąd Najwyższy) against the judgment of the
Court of Appeal.
- On
14 February 2002 the Supreme Court, sitting in camera, refused to
entertain the cassation appeal as it did not raise any issue of
general importance.
- On
20 June 2002 the Poznań Court of Appeal remitted the case to the
Szczecin Regional Court.
- On
23 May 2003 the Szczecin Regional Court held a hearing. A hearing
scheduled for 6 April 2004 was postponed because the judge
was ill.
- On
15 June 2004 a hearing was held.
- On
29 June 2004 the Szczecin Regional Court delivered its judgment. The
applicant lodged an appeal against it.
- On
23 November 2005, by a final judgment of the Poznań Court of
Appeal, the applicant's appeal was dismissed.
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
- On
16 March 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Court
under section 5 of the Law 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”). The Supreme Court referred the
case to the Szczecin Court of Appeal.
- The
applicant sought a ruling declaring that the length of the
proceedings before the Szczecin Regional Court had been excessive and
an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys
(PLN).
- On
24 June 2005 the Szczecin Court of Appeal gave a decision in which it
acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings before the
Szczecin Regional Court, finding that there had been periods of
unjustified inactivity in 1995 and 1996, then between January and
March 1998 and between June and November 2002. It awarded the
applicant PLN 3,000 in just satisfaction. The court observed that the
claim for just satisfaction in the amount of PLN 10,000 was
excessive.
- The
court did not take into consideration the delays that had occurred
before the Szczecin Court of Appeal (between August 1998 and
7 March 2000), nor did it consider the period between
12 June 2000 and 14 February 2002, when the case
was pending before the Supreme Court.
C. Civil proceedings for repossession
- On
5 January 1995 a certain “S-P” Company Ltd instituted
civil proceedings for repossession against the applicant. Between
20 January 1995 and 22 October 1996 the
court held twelve hearings. By a decision of 12 December 1996
the Goleniów District Court discontinued the proceedings.
D. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
- On
an unknown date in 1994 the police instituted criminal proceedings
against the applicant on charges of threatening behaviour. On
9 January 1995, by a decision of the district prosecutor,
the applicant was made subject to a police supervision order. The
applicant appealed.
- On
10 February 1995 the Szczecin Regional Prosecutor amended the
decision and the police supervision order was quashed.
- On
29 March 1996 the Goleniów District Court issued a penal order
imposing a fine on the applicant. It appears that the applicant
lodged an appeal. The proceedings were terminated by a final decision
of 5 June 1996 (the applicant has not produced a copy of
it).
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
28. 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
period to be taken into consideration began on 27 June 1995
and ended on 23 November 2005. It thus lasted 10 years and 5 months
for 3 levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Government raised a preliminary objection that the applicant had not
exhausted remedies available under Polish law. They maintained that
she had not lodged a civil claim with the Polish civil courts under
Article 417 of the Civil Code for compensation for damage
suffered due to the excessive length of the proceedings.
- The
applicant generally contested the Government's arguments.
- The
Court notes that the applicant lodged a complaint about the length of
the proceedings under the 2004 Act. On 24 June 2005 the
Szczecin Court of Appeal confirmed that the proceedings had been
lengthy and awarded the applicant the equivalent of EUR 810 in
compensation.
The
Court has already examined that remedy for the purposes of Article 35
§ 1 of the Convention and found it effective in respect of
complaints about the excessive length of judicial proceedings in
Poland (see Michalak v. Poland (dec.) no. 24549/03,
§§ 37-43).
- Furthermore,
the Court has already held that having exhausted the available remedy
provided by the 2004 Act, the applicant was not required to embark on
another attempt to obtain redress by bringing a civil action for
compensation (see Cichla v. Poland
no. 18036/03, § 26, 10 October 2006).
- Accordingly,
the Court concludes that, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1
of the Convention, the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies. 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.
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 of the
Convention.
II. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant also complained of the unfairness of the proceedings for
repossession and the criminal proceedings instituted against her.
- However,
pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention:
“1. The Court may only deal with the
matter ... within a period of six months from the date on which the
final decision was taken...”
- The
Court notes that the proceedings in question ended with the District
Court's decisions of 12 December 1996 and 5 June 1996
respectively, that is, more than six months before 26 May 2004,
the date on which this complaint was submitted to the Court.
It
follows that this part of the application has been introduced out of
time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1
and 4 of the Convention.
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 20,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in respect of pecuniary
damage and PLN 5,000 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 the equivalent of the full
sum claimed, namely EUR 1,400 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage
she must have suffered as a result of the protracted character of the
proceedings.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not make any claim for costs and expenses incurred in
the 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
- 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 1,400 (one
thousand four hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus
any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into Polish zlotys 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 20 May 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
