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 JAGIEŁŁO v. POLAND (no. 2)
(Application
no. 8934/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2 December
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 Jagiełło v. Poland (no. 2),
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
Lawrence Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 13 November 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 8934/05) 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, Mr January
Jagiełło (“the applicant”), on 2 February 2005.
- The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
- On
14 December 2006 the
President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to give notice
of the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings 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 1936 and lives in Warszawa.
- He
is a taxi driver by profession. On 4 February 1974 he had a car
accident in Bulgaria. On 28 November 1995 he was involved
in another car accident in Warsaw.
A. Proceedings concerning disability pension
- On
5 August 1996 the applicant lodged a claim for a disability pension
in connection with both accidents. On 16 October 1996 the Warsaw
Social Security Board gave a decision. On 20 December 1996 the
applicant appealed against it.
- On
14 November 1997 the Warsaw Regional Court stayed the
proceedings with respect to the disability caused by the accident of
28 November 1995 pending the termination of criminal
proceedings against the applicant. The applicant's interlocutory
appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Warsaw Court of
Appeal on 18 December 1997.
- As
regards the disability resulting from the accident which had occurred
in 1974, the Regional Court has still not determined the matter.
- On
23 July 1998 the applicant filed another motion with the Warsaw
Social Security Board to be granted a disability pension in
connection with the 1974 accident. On 24 February 1999 he lodged a
complaint with the Regional Court alleging inactivity on the part of
the Social Security Board.
- On
3 November 2004 the Regional Court severed part of the applicant's
claim concerning the 1974 accident.
- On
10 November 2004 the Social Security Board gave a decision in respect
of the 1974 accident. On 25 November 2004 the applicant appealed
against it.
- On
29 April 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment in the
criminal proceedings against the applicant concerning the accident
which had occurred in 1995. The judgment is final.
- On
27 September 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court gave a judgment
upholding the decision issued by the Warsaw Social Security Board in
2004 in connection with the 1974 accident. The judgment is final.
- On
1 February 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment granting the
applicant a right to a disability pension in connection with the 1995
accident. Both parties appealed against that judgment.
- On
14 August 2007 the Warsaw Court of Appeal gave judgment in which it
rejected the applicant's appeal and entertained the appeal lodged by
the Warsaw Social Security Board. The Court of Appeal quashed the
second-instance judgment of 1 February 2007 and remitted the case.
- The
proceedings in respect of the 1995 accident are still pending.
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
- On
an unspecified date the applicant filed a complaint with the Warsaw
Regional Court under the 2004 Act as regards the proceedings relating
to the 1995 accident.
- On
8 February 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the
applicant's complaint. The court observed that the proceedings had
been stayed because the criminal proceedings against the applicant
were pending.
- On
17 February 2005 the applicant filed a complaint with the Warsaw
Regional Court under the 2004 Act alleging that the proceedings
concerning the 1974 accident had been unreasonably lengthy.
- On
5 May 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal gave judgment and
confirmed that the proceedings had been lengthy. It also granted the
applicant PLN 4,000 [EUR 1,200] in compensation.
- Subsequently,
the applicant filed several complaints under the 2004 Act as
regards the proceedings relating to the 1995 accident.
On 5
September 2007, having examined the applicant's complaint on the
merits, the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint.
On 19
June 2008 the Warsaw Court of Appeal refused to entertain the
applicant's complaint lodged on 6 May 2008 on the ground that the
statutory period of twelve months had not lapsed since the date of
the previous complaint.
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 UNFAIRNESS OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
- The
applicant first raised a general complaint that the proceedings in
his case were unfair. This complaint falls to be examined under
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, in its relevant part,
reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by
[a] ... tribunal...”
However, pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention:
“The Court may only deal with the matter after all
domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally
recognised rules of international law ...”
- The
Court observes that the applicant did not lodge an appeal against the
Warsaw Regional Court's judgment of 27 September 2005
(concerning the 1974 accident), whereas the proceedings related to
the 1995 accident are still pending. Consequently, this part of the
application must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1,
3 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies
(the 1974 accident) and as being premature (the 1995 accident).
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 two sets of 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 refrained from making any comments in that respect.
- As
regards the proceedings related to the 1974 accident, the period to
be taken into consideration began on 5 August 1996 and ended on
27 September 2005. The proceedings thus lasted over nine years
for two levels of jurisdiction. The proceedings related to the 1995
accident started on 5 August 1996 and have not yet ended. They
have thus lasted over eleven years for three levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- In
the present case the Warsaw Regional Court acknowledged a breach of
the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the
case concerning the 1974 accident. The court also awarded just
satisfaction which was, however, well below the maximum limit
provided under the 2004 Act and amounted to approximately 20% of what
the Court would be likely to have awarded the applicant at the time
in accordance with its practice, taking into account the particular
circumstances of the proceedings. Moreover, the court's decision did
not have any acceleratory effects on the proceedings, which have in
fact continued until the present day. Having regard to the criteria
for determining victim status in respect of length of proceedings
complaints as set out in the judgment Scordino v. Italy (no.
1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 193-215, ECHR-2006-...;
the Court concludes that, in the circumstances of the case, the
complaint cannot be rejected as being incompatible ratione
personae with the Convention.
- The
court also observes that the applicant filed three complaints under
the 2004 Act in connection with the proceedings concerning the 1995
accident (see paragraphs 18 and 21 above). The Warsaw Court of Appeal
examined two complaints which had been filed in compliance with the
procedural requirements on the merits and dismissed them both.
Consequently, the Court considers that the applicant exhausted
domestic remedies in compliance with Article 35 § 1 of the
Convention.
- The Court further notes that neither that complaint
nor the complaint related to the proceedings concerning the 1995
accident is manifestly ill founded within the meaning of Article
35 § 3 of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds.
Both complaints 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.
Furthermore, the Court considers that, in dismissing the applicant's
complaint that the proceedings related to the 1974 accident exceeded
a reasonable time, the Warsaw 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).
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Lastly, the applicant submitted numerous complaints
relating to the criminal proceedings against him.
- Having regard to Article 35 § 2 (b) the Court
notes that these complaints are essentially the same as those already
examined by the Court in the applicant's previous application no.
59738/00 (see Jagiełło v. Poland, no. 59738/00,
23 January 2007) and that they contain no relevant new
information.
- Consequently,
this part of the application must be rejected under Article 35 § 2
(b) of the Convention.
IV. 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 89,987 Polish zlotys (PLN) and 25,000 euros (EUR)
in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage respectively.
- 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, and having regard to the amount already awarded to
the applicant under the 2004 Act (see paragraph 20 above), it awards
the applicant EUR 7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed PLN 166,89 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and the Court.
- The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
- 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 applicant, who was not
represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 50 under this head.
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 both sets of proceedings admissible and the remainder of
the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the unreasonable length of
both sets of proceedings;
- 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, to be converted
into Polish zlotys at the rate applicable at the date of settlement,
EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage
and EUR 50 (fifty euros) in respect of costs and expenses;
(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 2 December 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
