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]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF CZERWIŃSKI v. POLAND
(Application no. 10384/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
17 October 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 Czerwiński 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,
Ms L.
Mijović,
judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 26 September 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The case originated in an
application (no. 10384/02) 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 Kordian Czerwiński (“the applicant”),
on 2 August 2001.
- The Polish Government (“the Government”)
were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
- On 24 August 2005
the President of the Fourth Section decided to communicate the
applicant’s complaint concerning the length of proceedings to
the Government. 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 1937 and lives in Brześć
Kujawski, Poland.
- On 29 January 1985 the applicant initiated before the
Włocławek District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) civil
proceeding concerning the division of his late parents’ estate.
The estate consisted of two plots of land, 16 hectares in area,
and one house.
- Subsequently, the court held hearings and ordered
expert opinions.
- In 1993 the court held hearings in June and November.
Subsequently, the court ordered expert opinions and in September 1994
it stayed the proceedings. Upon the applicant’s appeal the
proceedings were resumed on 5 June 1995. The next hearing was
held in July 1996 but subsequent hearings were held at more regular
intervals.
- Between September 1997 and March 1999 no hearings were
held. During this period, the court ordered an expert opinion which
was submitted in April 1998. A hearing scheduled for January 1999 was
cancelled and took place in March 1999. Subsequently, the court
ordered another expert opinion to be prepared and held the next
hearing on 25 April 2000.
- At least on two occasions, in 1996 and 2000, the
presiding judge changed and the proceedings had to start from the
beginning.
- On 4 May 2000 the Włocławek District Court
gave judgment. The court divided up the estate in question.
- A party to the proceedings lodged an appeal against
the judgment.
- On 13 February 2001 the Włocławek Regional
Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- Articles 417 et seq. of the Civil Code (Kodeks
cywilny) provide for the State’s liability in tort.
In the version applicable until 1 September 2004, Article 417
§ 1, which lays down a general rule, read as follows:
“1. The State Treasury shall be liable
for damage caused by a State official in the performance of the
duties entrusted to him.”
- Article 442 of the Civil Code sets out limitation
periods in respect of various claims based on tort. That provision
applies to situations covered by Article 417 of the Civil Code.
Article 442, in so far as relevant, reads:
“1. A claim for compensation for damage
caused by a tort shall lapse three years following the date on which
the claimant learned of the damage and of the persons liable for it.
However, the claim shall in any case lapse ten years following the
date on which the event causing the damage occurred.”
- On 17 September 2004 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”) entered into force. It lays down various
legal means designed to counteract and/or redress the undue length of
judicial proceedings.
A more detailed rendition of the relevant domestic law provisions is
set out in the Court’s judgment in Krasuski v. Poland,
no. 61444/00, §§ 34 46, ECHR 2005–...
(extracts) and in Charzyński v. Poland (dec.),
no. 15212/03, §§12 23, ECHR 2005 ....
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 contested that argument.
- The Court notes that the period to be taken into
consideration began not on 29 January 1985 when the applicant
initiated the proceedings, but 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 13 February 2001. It thus lasted
7 years and almost 10 months for two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The Court firstly notes that the Government raised a
preliminary objection that the applicant had not exhausted remedies
available under Polish law. They maintained that from 17 September
2004, when the 2004 Act had come into force, the applicant had a
possibility of lodging a claim for compensation for damage suffered
due to the excessive length of proceedings with the Polish civil
courts under Article 417 of the Civil Code read together with section
16 of the 2004 Act.
- However, the Court has already found that the civil
action relied on cannot be regarded with a sufficient degree of
certainty as an effective remedy in cases where the three-year
limitation period for the State’s liability in tort expired
before the entry into force of the 2004 Act on 17 September 2004
(see Ratajczyk v. Poland; (dec), 11215/02, 31 May
2005, Barszcz v. Poland, no 71152/01, § 45,
30 May 2006). The present case belongs to this group of
applications as the proceedings at issue ended on 13 February
2001, which is more than three years before the 2004 Act had come
into force. It follows that the Government’s plea of
inadmissibility on the ground of non exhaustion of domestic
remedies must be dismissed.
- The Court further 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.
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 50,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in
respect of non pecuniary damage.
- The Government contested the claim.
- The Court awards the applicant 4,400 euros (EUR) in
respect of non pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The applicant also claimed PLN 15,000 for costs and
expenses incurred before the domestic courts.
- 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.
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 4,400 (four thousand four hundred euros) in respect
of non-pecuniary damage, 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 17 October 2006, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
