[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF CZAUS v. POLAND
(Application
no. 18026/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 January
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 Czaus 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,
Ján
Šikuta, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 4 January 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 18026/03) 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 Miroslaw
Czaus (“the applicant”), on 27 May 2003.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr J. Szczechowicz, a lawyer practising
in Olsztyn. The Polish Government were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs.
- On
3 April 2007 the
President of the Fourth Section of the Court 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 1956 and lives in Olsztyn, Poland.
- The
facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised
as follows.
A. The first set of civil proceedings against Ms J.R.
and Mr G.M.
- On
12 September 2000 the applicant instituted before the Olsztyn
Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) civil proceedings
against Ms J.R. and Mr G.M. in which he claimed payment for
construction work he had carried out. The applicant requested that
his claim be considered in a summary procedure (postępowanie
nakazowe).
- On
10 October 2000 the court allowed the action and issued a payment
order against the defendant. The defendant appealed.
- Subsequently,
all the judges of the Olsztyn Regional Court asked to be excluded
from trying the case as the defendant was married to one of the
judges. The case was thus transferred to the Warsaw Regional Court
where it was filed under case no. XV GC 375/01.
- The
court held the first hearing on 8 October 2002. The next hearings
were held on 20 February and 28 November 2003.
- On
27 May 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment in which it
allowed a part of the applicant's action.
- The
applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment.
- On
22 August 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint about a breach of the
right to have his case heard within a reasonable time. He relied on
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”).
- On
24 August 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny)
held the first hearing.
- On
3 October 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint
about the unreasonable length of the proceedings. The court
established that the Regional Court had been inactive for many months
which led to the unjustified protraction of the proceedings. However,
the inactivity occurred before the entry into force of the 2004 Act
and thus could not be taken into consideration.
- The
proceedings on the merits of the applicant's civil action are pending
before the appeal court.
B. The second and third set of civil proceedings
- In
July 1999 the applicant lodged civil proceedings for payment with the
Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) against the limited
liability company “Auto Żoliborz”.
- On
31 January 2003 the court gave a judgment. The applicant appealed.
- On
7 May 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court quashed the impugned judgment
and remitted the case.
- On
24 May 2005 the Warsaw District Court gave a judgment.
- The
appeal lodged against this judgment was rejected on 18 October
2005 as it had been lodged out of time.
- On
17 May 2001 the applicant initiated another set of civil proceedings
against Mr A.S. and Mr J.C.
- On
17 May 2001 the Olsztyn District Court gave a judgment in which it
partly allowed the applicant's action. The applicant appealed.
- On
3 March 2003 the Olsztyn Regional Court partly allowed the appeal.
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 described 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 WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST SET 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 his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government did not comment on the admissibility and merits of the
applicant's complaint.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 12 September 2000 and
has not yet ended. It has thus lasted to date over 7 years for two
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).
- 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
there are no grounds justifying a different conclusion in the present
case. In particular, the Court notes that no hearing was held in the
period of almost two years after the case had been transferred to the
Warsaw Regional Court (see paragraphs 8 and 9 above). 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 about the unreasonable length of two other
sets of civil proceedings.
However,
pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention:
“The Court may only deal with the matter after all
domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally
recognised rules of international law ...”
- With
regard to the complaint about the length of the civil proceedings for
payment against the limited liability company “Auto Żoliborz”,
the Court notes that the proceedings lasted between July 1999 and
October 2005 (see paragraphs 16 and 20 above). The other set of
proceedings complained of, against Mr A.S. and Mr J.C., lasted
between May 2001 and March 2003 (see paragraphs 21 and 23 above) and
thus ended less than three years before 17 September 2004, the date
on which the 2004 Act had come into force.
- The Court observes that, pursuant to section 16 of the
2004 Act, it was open to persons such as the applicant to seek
compensation in tort from the State Treasury, relying on Article 417
of the Civil Code for damage caused by the allegedly excessive length
of proceedings in which a judicial decision on the merits of the case
had already been given (see Turzyński v. Poland
(dec.), no. 10453/03, 22 November 2005).
- The Court has already examined whether a civil action
for damages brought under section 16 of the 2004 Act read together
with Article 417 of the Civil Code was an effective remedy in
respect of the length of judicial proceedings. It held, having regard
to the characteristics of these remedies and notwithstanding the
absence of established judicial practice in respect of such claims,
that these remedies were effective in respect of persons who on 17
September 2004, when the 2004 Law entered into force, could still
lodge such an action with the competent domestic court (see Krasuski
v. Poland, judgment of 14 June 2005, §§ 69-72).
- Moreover,
as to the set of proceedings that ended in October 2005, it was open
to the applicant to lodge a complaint about a breach of the right to
have his case heard within a reasonable time under the 2004 Act.
- However,
the applicant has chosen not to avail himself of the available
remedies in either set of proceedings.
- It
follows that both complaints must be rejected under Article 35
§§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion
of domestic remedies.
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 15,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government submitted that the claim was excessive.
- The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some
non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards award
him 3,500 euros (EUR) under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed PLN 5,368 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts. That sum included PLN 2,928, equivalent
to EUR 773 on the date of the invoice, for the costs of
representation before the Court and PLN 244, equivalent to EUR 65,
for the costs of translation into English.
- 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. It considers it
reasonable to award the applicant EUR 850 for the costs and expenses
incurred 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 first set 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 in respect of the unreasonable length of
the first set of the proceedings;
- 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 3,500
(three thousand five hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage and EUR 850 (eight hundred and fifty euros) for costs and
expenses, 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 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 22 January 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
