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 BISZTA v. POLAND
(Application
no. 4922/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18
December 2007
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 Biszta v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,
Mr G.
Bonello,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr L. Garlicki,
Ms L.
Mijović,
Mr J. Šikuta,
Ms P. HirvelÄ,
judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 27 November 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 4922/02) 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 Kazimierz
Biszta (“the applicant”), on 1 August 2001.
- The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr. Jakub Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs.
- On
12 September 2006 the
Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to
communicate the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings to
the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it 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 1953 and lives in Wrocław.
1. Main proceedings (civil proceedings for payment)
- On
12 March 1994 the applicant filed a claim for payment against a
contractor before the Wrocław Regional Court, Commercial Law
Division.
- On
21 February 1995 the case file was transferred to the competent Civil
Law Division of the same court.
- On
12 October 1995 the Wrocław Regional Court dismissed the claim
and the applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment.
- The
judgment was quashed on 27 March 1996 by the Wrocław Court of
Appeal and the case remitted for re-examination.
- On
24 October 1997 the Wrocław Regional Court again disallowed the
applicant's action and his subsequent appeal was dismissed on 14 May
1998 by the Wrocław Court of Appeal. The judgment was served on
the applicant on 10 December 1998.
- On
22 December 1998 the President of the Wrocław Court of Appeal,
in reply to the applicant's hierarchical complaint, stated that the
length of the proceedings was excessive.
- On
11 January 1999 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal through his
legal-aid lawyer appointed on 21 December 1998. He maintained, inter
alia, that he had not been informed by the courts in due time
about the possibility of having a legal-aid lawyer appointed to his
case.
- On
11 May 2001 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the cassation
appeal, having found that there was no need of interpretation of
provisions which did not give rise to serious difficulties, no
flagrant breach of law and no grounds for nullity of proceedings.
- On
1 June 2001 the afore-said decision was served on the applicant.
2. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
- On
22 October 2004 the applicant lodged a claim for damages under
section 16 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”) read in conjunction with Article 417 of the Civil Code.
He sought compensation in the amount of PLN 10,000.
- The
complaint was rejected on 29 November 2004 by the Supreme Court on
procedural grounds. The court further noted that even if the claim
had not been dismissed for formal shortcomings it would have been in
any event inadmissible as time-barred.
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 and the judgment in
the case of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§
34-46, ECHR 2005-V.
THE LAW
I. 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
period to be taken into consideration began on 12 March 1994 and
ended on 11 May 2001. It thus lasted 7 years, 2 months and 1 day for
3 levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Government raised a preliminary objection that the applicant had not
exhausted domestic remedies available to him under Polish law, as
required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They maintained
that from 17 September 2004, the date of entry into force of the
2004 Act, the applicant had a possibility of seeking compensation for
the damage resulting from the excessive length of proceedings before
Polish courts, under section 16 of the 2004 Act read in conjunction
with Article 417 of the Civil Code.
- However, the Court has already held that the civil
action relied on by the Government cannot be regarded as an effective
remedy with a sufficient degree of certainty 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, cited above; and
Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, § 45,
30 May 2006). The following was also noted by the Supreme Court
in its judgment of 29 November 2004 (see paragraph 15 above). The
present case belongs to this group of applications as the proceedings
at issue ended on 11 May 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 also
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 4,371,429
in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
-
The Government contested the claim.
- 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 1,800 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed PLN 14,709
for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and
for those incurred 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 applicant, who was not represented by a
lawyer, 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 remainder of 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 1,800 in
respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 100 in respect of costs and
expenses to be converted into the currency of the respondent State 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 18 December 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
