FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 45076/08
by Robert JĄKALSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 June 2010 as a Committee composed of:
and Fatoş Aracı,
Having regard to the above application lodged with the Court on 4 August 2008,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Robert Jąkalski, is a Polish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Grodków. He was represented before the Court by Mr D. Tomanek, a lawyer practising in Zabrze. The respondent Government were represented by Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 30 November 2001 a bill of indictment against the applicant was lodged with the Gliwice District Court. On 19 August 2004 the court found the applicant guilty of theft. The applicant appealed. On 8 February 2005 the court of appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case. On 20 December 2006 the composition of the first-instance court changed. From January 2007 the proceedings were conducted anew, and then again in March 2007. On 26 April 2007 the District Court convicted the applicant of theft. The applicant appealed.
In the course of those proceedings the applicant filed a complaint about their excessive length under the 2004 Act.
The complaint was dismissed on 1 August 2007 by the Gliwice Regional Court. The court found that the proceedings had started on 30 November 2001. It admitted that there had been a two-year period of inactivity during the trial. However, it had occurred before the 2004 Act had come into force.
On 18 December 2007 the Gliwice Regional Court gave a final judgment in the criminal proceedings against the applicant. This judgment was served on the applicant on 10 January 2008.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him.
THE LAW
The applicant submitted that the proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
The Government argued that the final domestic decision had been given on 18 December 2007. Consequently, the application should have been lodged before 18 June 2008.
As the applicant had lodged his application with the Court on 4 August 2008, he had failed to comply with the six month requirement laid down by Article 35 of the Convention.
The applicant disagreed.
The Court notes that the impugned criminal proceedings ended on 19 December 2007 when the second-instance court gave a judgment in the applicant's case. The copy of this judgment together with its written grounds was served on the applicant on 10 January 2008.
As the applicant lodged this complaint with the Court only on 4 August 2008, his application was not lodged within the six months' time-limit. It follows that it must be rejected as being out of time within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
	Fatoş Aracı	
	Deputy Registrar	President