[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF ŁAKOMIAK v. POLAND
(Application
no. 28140/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 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 Łakomiak 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,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi
Bianku,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and
Fatoş Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 30 September 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 28140/05) 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, Ms Anna
Łakomiak (“the applicant”), on 27 July 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 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 1948 and lives in Łódź.
A. Civil proceedings for division of an inheritance and
dissolution of co-ownership
- On
19 September 1996 the applicant lodged an application for division of
an inheritance and dissolution of co-ownership with the Łódź
District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The inheritance consisted
of an apartment, money deposited on bank accounts and golden
jewellery.
- During
the proceedings the hearings were scheduled approximately once a
year. The hearings were often adjourned due to the judge's illness or
the parties' lawyers' failure to appear.
- On
8 February 2000 the applicant lodged an application with the District
Court for the case to be dealt with speedily as, on account of unpaid
rent for the apartment, being a part of the inheritance, the estate
had fallen into debt.
- On
18 October 2006 the District Court ruled on the inheritance rights
and awarded the applicant money and furniture. The applicant
appealed.
- On
16 April 2007 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd
Okręgowy) partially amended the District Court's judgment
and increased the sum awarded to the applicant. On
111 May
2007 the Regional Court issued a writ of execution in respect of the
judgment.
The
enforcement proceedings are pending.
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
- On
27 April 2005 the applicant filed a complaint with the Łódź
Regional Court 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 Łódź District Court had been
excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of
20,684.79 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 5,200 euros (EUR)).
- On
20 June 2005 the Łódź Regional Court gave a decision
in which it acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings
before the Łódź District Court. It awarded the
applicant PLN 3,000 (approximately EUR 750) in just
satisfaction. The court referred to the overall length of the
proceedings and to the complexity of the case.
- The
applicant appealed. On 20 July 2005 the Regional Court rejected the
appeal as inadmissible in law.
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 ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNFAIRNESS OF THE PROCEEDINGS
- The
applicant first complained that the proceedings in her case had been
unfair. In particular, she alleged that the domestic courts had
incorrectly assessed the evidence. She alleged a breach of Article 6
§ 1 of the Convention, which, in its relevant part, reads:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., 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. Moreover, while
Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing,
it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or
the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters
for regulation by national law and the national courts (see García
Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I,
with further references).
- In
the present case the applicant did not allege any particular failure
to respect her right to a fair hearing on the part of the relevant
courts. Indeed, her complaints are limited to a challenge to the
result of the proceedings. 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.
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 did not submit observations on the admissibility and
merits of the complaint.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 19 September 1996
and ended on 16 April 2007. It thus lasted ten years and
seven months for two court instances.
A. Admissibility
21. In the present case
the Regional Court acknowledged a breach of the
applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarded
her the equivalent of EUR 750 in respect of the length of the
proceedings (see paragraph 12 above). The just satisfaction
awarded by the Regional Court amounts to approximately 12 per cent of
what the Court would be likely to have awarded the applicant at that
time in accordance with its practice, taking into account the
particular circumstances of the proceedings.
The Court thus concludes that the redress provided to the applicant
at domestic level, considered on the basis of the facts of which she
complains before the Court, was insufficient (see Czajka v.
Poland, no. 15067/02, § 56, 13 February
2007). Having regard to the criteria for determining victim status in
respect of length of proceedings complaints as set out in the
judgment of Scordino v. Italy (no.1) ([GC], no. 36813/97,
§§ 193-215, ECHR-2006-...), the Court concludes that the
complaint cannot be rejected as being incompatible ratione
personae with the Convention.
- 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).
- 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, who was not represented by a lawyer, did not claim any
particular sum in respect of pecuniary or non pecuniary damage.
However, she submitted that she had suffered pecuniary damage as well
as stress and frustration due to the protracted length of the
proceedings.
- The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
- 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 5,800 in respect of
non pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed 58,705 Polish zlotys (PLN) for the costs and
expenses incurred before the domestic courts and PLN 750 for those
incurred before the Court.
- 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 applicant, who was unrepresented, the sum of
EUR 100 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 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 5,800 (five
thousand eight hundred euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage and EUR 100 (one hundred euros) for 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 21 October 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President
