[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF GNATOWSKA v. POLAND
(Application
no. 23789/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 October
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 Gnatowska 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 16 September 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 23789/04) 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 Katarzyna
Gnatowska (“the applicant”), on 18 June 2004.
- The
applicant was represented by Ms M. Gąsiorowska, a lawyer
practising in Warszawa. The Polish Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
- On
13 September 2007 the
President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the
application 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 1961 and lives in Zakroczym.
A. Main proceedings
- On
4 March 1986 the applicant's mother lodged with the Nowy Dwór
Mazowiecki District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a motion for the
dissolution of a co-ownership and division of an inheritance. The
estate comprised, inter alia, a farm and plots of land located
in Zakroczym. The applicant and her brother were also involved in the
proceedings as parties.
- Between
4 March 1986 and 3 April 1992 the court scheduled fifteen hearings
and appointed three experts. In the meantime, the applicant lodged
several complaints about the unreasonable length of the proceedings,
to no avail.
- On
3 April 1992 the court stayed the proceedings. They were resumed on
24 July 1995.
- Between
16 August 1995 and 14 May 2002 the court scheduled
twenty-three hearings, thirteen of which were adjourned for various
reasons, for instance the need to obtain additional evidence, in
particular several experts' reports. Three hearings were adjourned at
the applicant's request.
- On
14 May 2002 the court closed the trial and adjourned delivery of a
decision. On 28 May 2002 the same court re-opened the
proceedings and ordered that additional evidence be obtained,
including experts' reports.
- On
17 November 2002 the applicant's brother died and the proceedings
were stayed. They were resumed on an unspecified date in 2003.
- Between
20 February 2003 and 1 June 2007 the court
ordered four expert reports to be obtained and scheduled sixteen
hearings, five of which were adjourned.
- The
proceedings are pending before the first-instance court.
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
- On
5 September 2005 the applicant lodged with the Warszawa Regional
Court (Sąd Okręgowy) a complaint under 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”).
- The
applicant sought a ruling declaring that the length of the
proceedings before the Nowy Dwór Mazowiecki District Court had
been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of
10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. EUR 2,500).
- On
7 October 2005 the Warszawa Regional Court dismissed her complaint on
the ground that on the date of the entry into force of the 2004 Act
no undue delays in the proceedings could be discerned. Although the
court acknowledged in general that the proceedings before 2004 had
been unreasonably lengthy, it did not examine the course of the
proceedings prior to the date of the entry into force of the 2004
Act. It stressed that the provisions of the 2004 Act could be applied
only to proceedings pending after 17 September 2004.
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.
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
Government refrained from taking a position on the merits of the
applicant's complaint, having regard to the Court's case-law
concerning the length of the proceedings.
- The
Court notes that the proceedings commenced on 4 March 1986.
However, the period to be taken into consideration began only on
1 May 1993, when the recognition by Poland of the right of
individual petition took effect. Nevertheless, in assessing the
reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must
be taken of the state of proceedings at the time.
The
period in question has not yet ended. It has thus lasted over fifteen
years and four months at one court instance.
A. Admissibility
- The
Government acknowledged that the applicant had exhausted all the
remedies available under Polish law.
- 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 her case exceeded a reasonable time, the Warszawa
Regional Court 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 observes 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 of the
Convention.
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 1,679,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in respect of
pecuniary damage and 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of 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 14,400 in respect of
non pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed PLN 10,000 for the costs and expenses incurred
in the proceedings. This amount included PLN
732 in lawyer's fees for preparation and presentation
of her case before the Court.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- 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 230 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 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 14,400
(fourteen thousand four hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage and EUR 230 (two hundred and thirty euros) in respect of
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
amount 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 7 October 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
