BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF MAJCHRZAK v. POLAND
(Application
no. 1524/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22
August 2006
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 Majchrzak v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,
Mr G.
Bonello,
Mr M. Pellonpää,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr L.
Garlicki,
Ms L. Mijović,
Mr J. Šikuta,
judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 11 July 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 1524/02) 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 Zbigniew
Majchrzak (“the applicant”), on 23 June 2001.
- The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz, of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
- On
1 September 2005 the President of the Fourth Section decided to
communicate the application. Under the provisions of Article 29 §
3 of the Convention, it was decided to examine the merits of the
application at the same time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Poznań, Poland.
1. The facts prior to 1 May 1993
- W.M.,
the applicant’s father died intestate in 1988. In November
1990, P.M., the applicant’s mother, requested the Poznań
District Court to declare that she and her three children, including
the applicant, were entitled to inherit from W.M.
- In
the course of those proceedings, the applicant’s mother, who
had made three different wills, died in 1992. Consequently, on 9
March 1992 the applicant requested to join the case concerning the
persons entitled to inherit from his mother to the original
proceedings.
- The
District Court held 6 hearings in 1992.
2. The facts after 1 May 1993
- The
District Court held 4 hearings on the following dates: 27 September
1993; 4 August and 28 October 1994; and 2 October 1995.
- On
11 February 1994 the court ordered that evidence from an expert be
obtained. The expert report was served on the parties on 18 March
1994. On 28 October 1994 the court ordered that evidence from a
handwriting expert be obtained. The expert report was submitted to
the court on 7 June 1995.
- On
16 October 1995 the Poznań District Court gave its decision
(postanowienie). It ruled that the estate of W.M. should pass,
according to the relevant statute, to the applicant’s mother,
the applicant, his sister (B.K.) and W.M.’s granddaughter. In
respect of the persons entitled to inherit from the applicant’s
mother, the District Court held that her entire estate should pass to
the applicant’s sister on the basis of the will made in 1990.
The applicant appealed against the District Court’s decision.
- On
27 February 1996 the Poznań Regional Court quashed the District
Court’s decision on the persons entitled to inherit from the
applicant’s mother and accordingly, remitted the case in part.
It found that the first-instance proceedings in that respect had been
null and void on the ground that M.M. (the applicant’s
daughter), who had a legal interest in the case, had not been
summoned to participate in the proceedings. The Regional Court upheld
the remainder of the first-instance decision.
- In
the subsequent proceedings the District Court held 8 hearings on the
following dates: 7 January, 26 September and 28 November 1997;
12 May, 21 August and 22 December 1998; and 8 and 22 February
1999.
- On
18 March 1999 the Poznań District Court ruled that B.K. (the
applicant’s sister) was the only person entitled to inherit
from the applicant’s mother in accordance with the 1990 will.
The applicant appealed against the District Court’s decision.
- The
Poznań Regional Court held a hearing on 9 November 1999. On
26 November 1999 it quashed the decision and remitted the case.
- On
2 January 2001 the Poznan District Court held the first and the only
hearing. On the same day it held in a decision that the only person
entitled to inherit from P.M., the applicant’s mother, was M.M.
(the applicant’s daughter) in accordance with the will made in
1988. It appears that none of the parties appealed against that
decision.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The
legal provisions applicable at the material time as well as matters
of practice are set out in paragraphs 26-35 of the judgment delivered
by the Court on 30 May 2006 in the case of Barszcz v. Poland,
no. 71152/01.
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,
provided 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
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. However, 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 ended on 2 January
2001. It thus lasted just over 7 years and 8 months for two
levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted remedies
available under Polish law. They maintained that from 17 September
2004 when 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”) had come into force, the applicant had a possibility of
lodging with the Polish civil courts under Article 417 of the
Civil Code read together with Article 16 of the 2004 Act a claim
for compensation for damage suffered due to the excessive length of
proceedings. They argued that the three-year prescription period for
the purposes of a compensation claim in tort based on the excessive
length of proceedings could run from a date later than the date on
which a final decision in these proceedings had been given. The
Government further submitted that such a possibility had existed in
Polish law before the entry into force of the 2004 Act ever since the
judgment of the Constitutional Court of 4 December 2001, which
entered into force on 18 December 2001.
- The
applicant contested the Government’s arguments.
- The
Court observes that the proceedings at issue ended at the latest on 2
January 2001, which is more than three years before the relevant
provisions of the 2004 Act read together with the Civil Code became
effective. It follows that the limitation period for the State’s
liability for tort set out in Article 442 of the Code Civil had
expired before 17 September 2004.
- The
Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government are the same
as those already examined by the Court in previous cases against
Poland (see Małasiewicz v. Poland, no. 22072/02, §§
32-34, 14 October 2003; Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.),
no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005-...; Barszcz v. Poland, no.
71152/01, §§ 41-45, 30 May 2006) and the Government have
not submitted any new arguments which would lead the Court to depart
from its previous findings. For these reasons, the Government’s
plea of inadmissibility on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic
remedies must be dismissed.
- The
Court notes that the application 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.
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 PLN 8,800 in respect of pecuniary damage. He left
the award in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the Court’s
discretion.
- 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 considers that the applicant must have suffered
some non pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it
awards award him EUR 3,500 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not seek to be reimbursed for any costs and expenses in
connection with 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 3,500
(three thousand five hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, 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 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 22 August 2006, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
