[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF KLIMKIEWICZ v. POLAND
(Application
no. 44537/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
28
April 2009
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 Klimkiewicz v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór
Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and
Lawrence Early,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 7 April 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 44537/05) 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 Kazimierz
Klimkiewicz (“the applicant”), on 14 October 2005.
- The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
- On
25 September 2007 the
President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to give notice
of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on
the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time
(Article 29 § 3).
- The
Government failed to submit their observations on the admissibility
and merits of the case.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Łόdź.
A. Civil proceedings for payment
- On
30 June 1997 the Łódź District Court (Sąd
Rejonowy) instituted criminal proceedings against an individual
charged with financial fraud. The applicant, who was considered to be
a victim, was entitled to lodge in the context of the criminal case a
claim for damages sustained as a result of the crime.
- On
30 July 1997 the Łódź Regional Prosecutor
(Prokurator Okręgowy) filed a civil claim for damages
against the defendant on the applicant’s behalf. On 29 August
1997 the District Court admitted the claim.
- A
hearing scheduled for 25 January 2001 was adjourned because of the
absence of the defendant, who had submitted a medical certificate
indicating that he had health problems. On 13 February 2001 the
defendant submitted another medical certificate stating that he had
been admitted to a hospital. On 3 April 2001 the court held a
hearing in the absence of the defendant. On 25 April 2001 the
defendant submitted another medical certificate.
- On
30 April 2001 the District Court ordered that the defendant be
examined by a forensic specialist. On 23 July 2001 a medical report
was submitted to the court. It stated that the defendant’s
health prevented him from participating in the forthcoming hearings
as he was to undergo surgery.
-
On 8 October 2001 the District Court stayed the proceedings and
ordered the defendant to provide information on his medical
treatment. The defendant failed to do so.
-
On 26 September 2002 the District Court issued an arrest warrant as
the police had informed the court that the defendant had left his
place of permanent residence. On 18 January 2003 the defendant was
apprehended by the police and detained until 16 January 2004.
-
On 5 February 2003 the District Court again stayed the proceedings
and ordered that the defendant be examined by a specialist. On
25 April 2003 a medical report was submitted to the court. It
stated that the defendant’s health did not prevent him from
participating in the proceedings.
-
On 25 September 2003 the court resumed the proceedings. On 28 October
2005 the court held a hearing.
-
The proceedings are currently pending.
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
-
On 14 October 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Łódź
Regional Court under section 5 of the Act of 17 June 2004 on
complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable
time (“the 2004 Act”).
-
On 3 December 2004 the Łódź Regional Court dismissed
the applicant’s complaint. The court considered that the
proceedings had lasted a long time but found no “unreasonable
delays” considering that the conduct of the defendant had
significantly contributed to the length of the proceedings. That
period of delay could not be attributed to the judicial authorities
as it had been caused by the fact that the defendant had repeatedly
failed to comply with the court’s orders.
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 in 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
period to be taken into consideration began on 30 July 1997 and
has not yet ended.
- It
has thus lasted eleven years, seven months and fourteen days at one
level of jurisdiction (on 13 March 2009).
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that the application 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 v. France, cited above; Hołowczak
v. Poland, no. 25413/04, §§ 52 60,
4 March 2008).
- 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.
The Court accepts that the case was of a certain complexity. However,
the complexity of the case cannot justify the overall length of the
proceedings. Moreover, the domestic court had at its disposal several
measures in order to compel the defendant to comply with the court’s
orders, but it failed to avail itself of them in an effective manner.
It is further noted that after over eleven years the proceedings are
still pending before the first-instance court. 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 PLN 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and
PLN 6,384 in respect of pecuniary damage.
- 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 full sum claimed, namely
EUR 5,540 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not make any claim for costs and expenses involved 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 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 5,540 (five
thousand five hundred and forty euros) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, to be converted into Polish zlotys at the rate applicable at
the date of settlement plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 April 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
