[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF PRZYBYLSKA-CONROY v. POLAND
(Application
no. 49490/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 May
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 Przybylska-Conroy 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 Lawrence Early,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 27 April 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 49490/08) 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 Grace
Przybylska-Conroy (“the applicant”), on 1 October
2008.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr J. Pruchniewski, a lawyer practising
in Poznań. The Polish Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
- On
8 June 2009 the
President of the Fourth Section of the Court 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).
- On
23 December 2009 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration
and invited the Court to strike out the application, in accordance
with Article 37 of the Convention. The applicant filed an objection.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1957 and lives in New York, USA.
A. Main proceedings [civil proceedings for division of
matrimonial property]
- On
19 January 1987 the applicant lodged a request for the division of
matrimonial property with the Poznań District Court (Sąd
Rejonowy).
- A
hearing, held on 14 December 1987, was adjourned to give the parties
an opportunity to settle the case. However, they apparently failed to
do so and on 13 April 1988 the first hearing on the merits was held.
- Between
18 May 1988 and 26 April 1993, the District Court scheduled
21 hearings, 13 of which were adjourned mostly due to the failure of
witnesses to appear or for lack of documents which the parties were
expected to supply. During that period the court asked experts
to prepare six opinions and supplementary opinions on the value of
the matrimonial property.
- In the meantime, on 2 February
1993, the case was assigned to another judge.
- Between
1 July 1993 and 28 May 2004 the District Court scheduled
49 hearings, 28 of which were adjourned. One hearing was
adjourned due to the failure of the applicant to appear. During that
period the court asked experts to prepare 10 reports and
supplementary opinions on the value of the matrimonial property.
- On
4 June 2004 the Poznań District Court gave a decision.
The applicant appealed.
- On
21 March 2006 the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy)
partly quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.
- Between
13 November 2006 and 18 February 2008 the District Court scheduled
6 hearings, during which the witnesses and the applicant were heard.
- On
17 March 2008 the Poznań District Court gave a decision.
The applicant appealed.
- The
proceedings are currently still pending before the appellate court.
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
- On
29 February 2008 the applicant lodged with the Poznań Regional
Court 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”) which entered into
force on 17 September 2004.
She
sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before
the Poznań District Court had been excessive and an award of
just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys
(PLN) (approx. 2,500 euros (EUR)).
- On
29 April 2008 the Poznań Regional Court dismissed her complaint.
It limited its examination of the length of the proceedings to the
period after 15 November 2005. On that date the Poznań Regional
Court had analysed the conduct of the District Court following the
complaint lodged by the applicant’s former husband the
other party to the proceedings. The excessive length of the
proceedings in question had been acknowledged and just satisfaction
in the amount of 4,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 1,000 euros
(EUR)) was granted to him. Having analysed the conduct of the
District Court during the period after 15 November 2005, the Regional
Court found that the proceedings had been conducted with due
diligence and within a reasonable time. The court stressed that the
conduct of the District Court could not be analysed twice, especially
since there had been no undue delay after this date.
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 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
23 December 2009 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration
similar to that in the case of 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 PLN 25,000
to the applicant (the equivalent of approx. 6,250 euros (EUR)). 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. She
considered that the amount proposed did not constitute sufficient
just satisfaction for the damage she had sustained and requested the
Court to continue the examination of the application.
- The
Court observes that, as it has already held on many occasions, it may
be appropriate under certain circumstances to strike out an
application or part of 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, which is substantially less than the Court
would have awarded in similar cases, the Court finds that the
Government failed to submit a statement offering 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, by contrast, 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 the 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 contested that argument.
- The
Court notes that the proceedings commenced on 19 January 1987.
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 had thus already lasted on
the last-mentioned date almost seventeen years for two 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, in dismissing the applicant’s complaint
that the proceedings in her case exceeded a reasonable time, the
Poznań 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).
In particular, the Court observes that the court failed to consider
the length of the proceedings preceding the date of the decision
given as to the merits of the complaint filed under the 2004 Act by
the applicant’s former husband, the other party to the dispute
(see paragraph 17 above).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court finds 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 35,000 Polish zlotys (the equivalent of approx.
8,750 euros (EUR)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- The
Court, ruling on an equitable basis and having regard to the amount
of compensation awarded to the applicant at the domestic level,
considers that it should award the full sum claimed.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed PLN 4,880 Polish zlotys (the equivalent of
approx. EUR 1,220) for the costs and expenses incurred before the
Court, namely the legal representative’s fee. Further, she
claimed PLN 2,610.80 Polish zlotys (the equivalent of approx. EUR
652) in translation fees, enclosing relevant invoices (concerning
documents submitted with the Court).
- The
Government contested these claims, alleging in particular that a
professional lawyer representing the applicant in the proceedings
before the Court, who took upon himself a duty of pleading before the
international court for which he is remunerated, should not claim
reimbursement of translation fees.
- 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 sum of EUR 1,500 covering costs
of legal representation and translation of documents submitted to 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
- Dismisses the Government’s request to
strike the case out of the list;
- 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 8,750
(eight thousand seven hundred and fifty euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred
euros) in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be
chargeable to be converted into the currency of the respondent State
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 amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 May 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
