[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF JAGIEŁŁO v. POLAND
(Application
no. 59738/00)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23
January 2007
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 Jagiełło v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,
Mr J.
Casadevall,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr S.
Pavlovschi,
Mr L. Garlicki,
Mr J. Šikuta, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 4 January 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 59738/00) 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 January Jagiełło (“the
applicant”), on 30 August 1999.
- The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs.
- On
1 December 2005
the Court decided to give notice of the application to the
Government.
- Applying
Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it 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 1936 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.
- On
28 November 1995, the applicant, who is a taxi driver by
profession, was involved in a traffic accident.
- On
28 February 1996 the applicant was charged with causing the
accident. On 2 September 1997 the applicant was served with a
bill of indictment.
- The
hearing set for 16 March 1998 was adjourned due to the presiding
judge’s illness. On 11 July 2001 the Warsaw District Court
(Sąd Rejonowy) held the first hearing in the case. The
hearing set for 20 September 2001 was adjourned due to the
witnesses’ absence.
- On
7 December 2001 the court ordered an expert opinion to be
obtained. On 30 April 2002 the expert submitted his opinion to
the court. The court ordered a supplementary opinion to be obtained.
- The
hearing set for 18 September 2002 was adjourned. At the hearing
held on 7 November 2002 the Warsaw District Court gave
judgment. The applicant appealed.
- On
6 June 2003 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy)
quashed the first instance judgment and remitted the case.
- Following
the remittal, on 23 September 2004 the Warsaw District Court
gave judgment. The court sentenced the applicant to one year
imprisonment stayed for two years. The applicant appealed.
- The
applicant filed a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court under the
Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to
a trial within a reasonable time (“2004 Act”). On
16 November 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court gave a decision and
confirmed that the proceedings had indeed been lengthy. However, the
court did not grant any compensation to the applicant.
- On
29 April 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court held an appeal hearing
and gave judgment. The judgment is final.
- On
6 June 2005 the applicant again filed a complaint with the
Supreme Court under the 2004 Act alleging that a copy of the final
judgment had not yet been served on him. The Supreme Court rejected
the complaint, on a later unknown date, as the applicant had never
asked to be served with a copy of the final judgment.
- On
21 February 2006 the applicant for the third time filed a
complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court under the 2004 Act. On
29 September 2006 the court refused to deal with the merits
of the complaint. The court held that the proceedings had already
been terminated and therefore the complaint was groundless.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The
relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the
excessive length of judicial proceedings 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 its 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 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 ... any criminal charge
against him, 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 28 February 1996
and ended on 29 April 2005. It thus lasted nine years and two
months for two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
1. The Government’s first preliminary objection
- The
Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted remedies
available under Polish law. They maintained that he had not lodged a
civil claim for compensation for damage suffered due to the excessive
length of the proceedings with the Polish civil courts under
Article 417 of the Civil Court.
- 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 and the Warsaw Regional Curt
confirmed on 16 November 2004 that the proceedings had been
lengthy. 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.
2. The Government’s second preliminary objection
- The
Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a
victim of a violation of the Convention as the Warsaw Regional Court
in its decision of 16 November 2005 had acknowledged that the
length of the proceedings in the present case had been excessive. The
fact that the Regional Court had awarded no just satisfaction to the
applicant could not affect the position, as the fees which he had
paid when lodging the complaint had been returned to him.
- The
applicant contested the Government’s arguments.
- The Court recalls that an applicant’s status as
a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention
depends, inter alia, on whether the redress afforded at
domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he complains
before the Court was adequate and sufficient having regard to
Article 41 of the Convention.
- In the present case the Regional Court found a
violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing without
unjustified delay. However, it awarded him no just satisfaction. In
these circumstances the Court is not satisfied that the redress
obtained at domestic level was sufficient to deprive the applicant of
the status of a victim for the purpose of Article 34 of the
Convention. The Government’s objection must therefore be
dismissed (see Palgutova v. Slovakia, no. 9818/02,
17 May 2005 § 47-49).
- 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 (see, among
many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France
[GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II)
- 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 Pélissier and Sassi v. France,
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.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF
THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNFAIRNESS OF THE PROCEEDINGS
- The
applicant also complained that the proceedings in his case were
unfair. In particular, he alleged errors of fact and law committed by
the courts. He alleged a breach of Articles 6 § 3 (a)
and 13 of the Convention. These complaints fall to be examined
under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in its
relevant part, reads:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a]
... tribunal...”
- However,
the Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the
Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements
undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In
particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law
allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they
may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention.
- In
the present case the applicant did not allege any particular failure
to respect his right to a fair hearing on the part of the relevant
courts. Assessing the circumstances of the case as a whole, the Court
finds no indication that the impugned proceedings were conducted
unfairly.
- It
follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill founded
and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3
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 PLN 360,000 [EUR 90,000] in respect of
pecuniary and 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 EUR 4,800 in respect of
non pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed PLN 310.60 [EUR 77] for the costs
and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and PLN 477.60
[EUR 120] for those incurred before the Court. These sums
concerned in particular postage expenses.
-
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
and considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 120 for the
proceedings 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 criminal 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 4,800
(four thousand eight hundred euros) in respect of non pecuniary
damage and EUR 120 (one hundred and twenty 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 on the above amounts;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above mentioned three months until
settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at
the 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 23 January 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
