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 PIASKOWSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND
(Application
no. 35431/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1 July
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 Piaskowski and Others v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór
Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Ledi
Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and
Lawrence Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 10 June 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 35431/05) 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 four Polish nationals, Mr Marian Piaskowski, Mrs Jolanta
Piaskowska, Mr Jan Łuczyński and Mrs Anna Łuczyńska
(“the applicants”), on 15 September 2005.
- The
applicants were represented by Mr M. Widawski, a lawyer practising in
Pabianice. The Polish Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
- On
13 July 2007 the
President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it was decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of
the application at the same time.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicants were born in 1947, 1953, 1953 and 1953 respectively and
live in Łódź.
A. Main proceedings
- On
7 December 2001 the Consumer Protection Association (Związek
Obrony Konsumentów) acting on behalf of the applicants
lodged a claim for payment with the Warszawa Regional Court (Sąd
Okręgowy).
- In
a letter of 22 May 2003 the applicants' legal adviser complained
about the delay in the proceedings and asked for a hearing date to be
fixed.
- On
15 December 2003 the court held the first hearing.
- From
January to March 2003 the court held 2 hearings.
- On
10 February 2004 the Warszawa District Court (Sąd Rejonowy)
declared the defendant insolvent. Consequently, at a hearing held on
4 March 2004 the trial court stayed the proceedings ex
lege.
- The
proceedings were resumed on 9 May 2007.
- On
11 May 2007 the Warszawa Regional Court discontinued the proceedings
in the case.
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
- On
4 February 2005 the Consumer Protection Association acting on behalf
of the applicants lodged a complaint with the Warszawa Court of
Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) 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”).
- The
applicants sought a ruling declaring that the length of the
proceedings before the Warszawa Regional Court had been excessive.
They asked for an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000
Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. EUR 2,500).
- On 15 March 2005 the Warszawa Court of Appeal
dismissed the complaint. The court found that the 2004 Act produced
legal effects as from the date of entry into force (17 September
2004), its provisions applied retroactively to all proceedings in
which delays had occurred before that date and had not yet been
remedied. It acknowledged that there had been a delay at the initial
stage of the proceedings but found that this situation had ceased to
exist when the 2004 Act entered into force.
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.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicants 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 did not submit observations on the admissibility and
merits of the complaint.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 7 December 2001
and ended on 11 May 2007. It thus lasted five years, five
months and four days for one court instance.
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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicants 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 applicants' complaint that the
proceedings in their case exceeded a reasonable time, the Warszawa
Court of Appeal 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).
- 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.
The Court notes that during the period under consideration the
proceedings were stayed ex lege for over 3 years pending the
termination of the insolvency proceedings. However, the domestic
court cannot be said to have displayed due diligence in dealing with
the applicants' case. In particular, the Court observes that the case
was heard by the court at only one instance and the first hearing in
the case was held two years after the applicants had lodged a claim.
- 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
applicants claimed 60,322 Polish zlotys (PLN) in respect of pecuniary
damage and PLN 40,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- 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 awards the applicants jointly EUR 4,800 in respect
of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicants also claimed a certain amount by way of legal costs and
expenses incurred in order to obtain redress for the violation of the
Convention. However, they did not specify the sum and requested the
Court to assess the amount of costs and expenses to be awarded on the
basis of its case-law.
- The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
- In
the absence of any substantiation of the legal costs and expenses
claimed, the Court dismisses the claim.
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 applicants jointly, within three
months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
EUR 4,800 (four thousand eight 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 applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 July 2008,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
