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 MAGOCH v. POLAND
(Application
no. 29539/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2 February
2010
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 Magoch 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,
Ján Šikuta,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
Nebojša Vučinić,
judges,
and Fatoş
Aracı,
Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 12 January 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 29539/07) 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, Ms Grażyna
Magoch (“the applicant”), on 4 June 2007.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr S. Skupień, a lawyer practising
in Łódź. The Polish Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Agent, Mr J.
Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
- On
11 May 2009 the
President of the Fourth Section 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 FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Łódź.
A. Main proceedings
- On
27 July 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for payment
against the Łódź Municipality.
- On
8 April 1998 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd
Wojewódzki) gave judgment. The court partly allowed the
applicant's claim. The defendant appealed.
- On
28 September 1998 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd
Apelacyjny) quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case.
- On
11 August 2005 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd
Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant's claim against the Łódź
Municipality. The applicant appealed.
- On
22 March 2006 the Łódź Court of Appeal dismissed her
appeal. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the appellate
court's judgment.
- On
12 January 2007 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy)
refused to entertain her cassation appeal.
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
- On
an unspecified date the applicant lodged with the Łódź
Court of Appeal a complaint 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”).
- On
16 September 2005 the Łódź Court of Appeal
acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings before the Łódź
Regional Court finding that there had been several periods of
unjustified inactivity for which the Łódź Regional
Court had been responsible. It referred to the periods between 29
January and 16 April 2004, 24 June and 27 October 2004, 12 January
and 18 May 2005 and qualified them as unjustified delays. The court
did not examine, however, the period prior to the entry into force
of the 2004 Act.
- The
court awarded the applicant 1,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx.
285 euros (EUR)) in just satisfaction.
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
16 October 2009 the Government submitted a unilateral
declaration similar to that in the case Tahsin Acar v. Turkey
(preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, ECHR
2003-VI) and informed the Court that they were ready to accept 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 the applicant had been involved. In respect
of non-pecuniary damage, the Government proposed to award the
applicant PLN 18,000 (the equivalent of approx. EUR 4,400). 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 and requested
the Court to continue the examination of the case. She maintained
that the amount offered was too low.
- The
Court observes that, as it has already held on many occasions, it may
be appropriate under certain circumstances to strike out an
application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the
basis of a unilateral declaration by the respondent Government even
if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
It will depend on the particular circumstances whether the unilateral
declaration offers a sufficient basis for finding that respect for
human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not
require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see
Tahsin Acar, cited above, § 75; and Melnic v.
Moldova, no. 6923/03, § 22, 14 November
2006).
- According to the Court's case-law, the amount
proposed in a unilateral declaration may be considered a sufficient
basis for striking out an application or part thereof. The Court will
have regard in this connection to the compatibility of the amount
with its own awards in similar length of proceedings cases, bearing
in mind the principles which it has developed for determining victim
status and for assessing the amount of non-pecuniary compensation to
be awarded where it has found a breach of the reasonable time
requirement (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC],
no. 64886/01, §§ 85 107, ECHR 2006 ...,;
Scordino v. Italy (no.1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 193-215,
ECHR-2006-...; and Dubjakova v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299/01,
10 October 2004).
- On the facts and for the reasons set out above, in
particular the amount of compensation proposed, the Court finds that
the Government have failed to provide a sufficient basis for
concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention
and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of
the case (see, conversely, Spółka z o.o. WAZA
v. Poland (striking out), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007).
- 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 ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNREASONABLE LENGTH OF THE 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 refrained from submitting any
observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 27 July 1995 and ended
on 12 January 2007. It thus lasted 11 years and 6 months for 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).
- 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, by not taking into account the
overall period of the proceedings, the Łódź 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.
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 200,000 (approximately 48,780 euros (EUR)) in
respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government submitted that there was no causal link between the
pecuniary damage alleged and the violation found. Moreover, they
contested the applicant's claim for non-pecuniary damage as
exorbitant.
- 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 and having regard to the amount already awarded to the
applicant under the 2004 Act (see paragraph 13 above), it awards the
applicant EUR 6,300 (approximately PLN 25,800) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed PLN 600 (equivalent to approximately EUR 160
on the date of the invoice) for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court.
- The
Government did not contest this claim.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of 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
considers it reasonable to award the applicant, who was represented
by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 160 under this head.
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 its list of cases;
- 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 6,300 (six
thousand three hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and
EUR 160 (one hundred and sixty euros) in respect of costs and
expenses, 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 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 2 February 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President
