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 CICHOCKI v. POLAND
(Application
no. 40748/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30
November 2010
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 Cichocki 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,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
Vincent Anthony de Gaetano, judges,
and
Lawrence Early, Section
Registrar,
Having deliberated
in private on 9 November 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 40748/09) 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 Ryszard
Cichocki (“the applicant”), on 16 July 2009.
- The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
- On
1 March 2010 the
President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. The President
further decided to give priority
to the application under Rule 41 in
fine of the Rules of Court.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Brwinów.
A. Proceedings for the distribution of inheritance
- On
15 June 1994 the applicant filed an application for the distribution
of an inheritance left by his grandmother.
- On
numerous occasions the proceedings were suspended, mostly due to the
successive deaths of the parties. The proceedings were:
suspended on 30
November 1995;
resumed on an
unknown date in 1999;
suspended on 25
January 2000;
resumed on an
unknown date in 2000 or 2001;
suspended on 6 June
2001;
resumed on
25 October 2004;
suspended on 18
January 2005;
resumed on 24 April
2006;
suspended on 5 July
2006;
resumed on 27 August
2007;
suspended on
7 December 2007 but immediately resumed;
suspended on
15 February 2008.
- The
proceedings are still pending before the court of first instance.
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
- On 10 April 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with
the Warsaw Regional Court under 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”). He sought a finding that the
length of the proceedings was excessive and compensation.
- On 7 May 2009 the Warsaw Regional
Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. In its assessment of the
length of the proceedings, the Regional Court did not take into
account the period before the entry into force of the 2004 Act. It
then went on to analyse in detail the course of the proceedings,
finding that the District Court had conducted them in a correct and
timely manner. It further concluded that the long duration of the
proceedings had resulted from numerous requests and motions filed by
the parties as well as from the successive deaths of the parties.
This obliged the District Court to suspend the proceedings each time.
The Regional Court finally pointed out that it was incumbent on the
parties and not on the court to determine the identity of the heirs
of the deceased parties in order for the proceedings to be continued.
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. THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THE APPLICATION
UNDER ARTICLE 37 OF THE CONVENTION
- On
9 June 2010 the Government submitted a unilateral
declaration similar to that in the case of Tahsin Acar v. Turkey
((preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, ECHR 2003-VI) and
informed the Court that they were ready to accept that there had been
a violation of the applicant's rights under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention as a result of the unreasonable length of the proceedings
in which the applicant had been involved. In respect of non pecuniary
damage the Government proposed to award PLN 5,000 to the
applicant (the equivalent of approx. EUR 1,250). The Government
invited the Court to strike out the application in accordance with
Article 37 of the Convention.
- The
applicant did not agree with the Government's proposal. He considered
that the amount proposed did not constitute sufficient just
satisfaction for the damage he had sustained and requested the Court
to continue the examination of the application.
- The
Court observes that, as it has already held on many occasions, it may
be appropriate under certain circumstances to strike out an
application or part thereof under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the
Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by the
respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of
the case to be continued. It will depend on the particular
circumstances whether the unilateral declaration offers a sufficient
basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the
Convention and its Protocols does not require the Court to continue
its examination of the case (see Tahsin Acar, cited above, §
75; and Melnic v. Moldova, no. 6923/03, § 22,
14 November 2006).
- According
to the Court's case-law, the amount proposed in a unilateral
declaration may be considered a sufficient basis for striking out an
application or part thereof. The Court will have regard in this
connection to the compatibility of the amount with its own awards in
similar length of proceedings cases, bearing in mind the principles
which it has developed for determining victim status and for
assessing the amount of non-pecuniary compensation to be awarded
where it has found a breach of the reasonable time requirement (see
Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 85-107,
ECHR 2006-V; Scordino v. Italy (no.1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§
193-215, ECHR-2006-V; and Dubjakova v. Slovakia (dec.), no.
67299/01, 10 October 2004).
- On
the facts and for the reasons set out above, in particular the amount
of compensation proposed, which is substantially less than the Court
would have awarded in similar cases, the Court finds that the
Government failed to submit a statement offering a sufficient basis
for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the
Convention and its Protocols does not require the Court to continue
its examination of the case (see, by contrast, Spółka
z o.o. WAZA v. Poland (striking out), no. 11602/02, 26 June
2007).
- This
being so, the Court rejects the Government's request to strike the
application out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the
Convention and will accordingly pursue the examination of the
admissibility and merits of the case.
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 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...”
- Along
with their unilateral declaration, the Government expressed the
opinion that some delay in the proceedings had been attributable
either to the applicant or to other parties to the proceedings, or
had resulted from circumstances independent from the conduct of the
domestic court, such as the successive deaths of the parties.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 15 June 1994
with the filing of the application for the distribution of an
inheritance. The proceedings instituted thereby are still pending.
Consequently, they lasted more than sixteen years at one level
of jurisdiction.
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 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; Kaniewska v. Poland, no. 8518/08, § 32,
18 May 2010; Jerzak v. Poland, no. 29360/06, § 26, 7
October 2008).
- 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 applicant's complaint that the
proceedings in his case 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).
- 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, even though
it was partly due to events not attributable to the domestic courts,
such as the successive deaths of the parties (see paragraph 9 above),
was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time”
requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
III. 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 a lump sum of 45,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as for the costs and
expenses incurred in the course of the proceedings before the
domestic courts and before the Court.
- The
Government contested the claim, arguing that it was exorbitant and
unjustified in the light of the Court's jurisprudence in similar
cases.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this part of
the claim.
- On
the other hand, it considers that the applicant must have sustained
non-pecuniary damage. The Court has had regard to the matters raised
by the Government (see paragraph 18 above). Consequently,
ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant
EUR 11,000 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- As
regards the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts
and before the Court, the applicant presented supporting documents to
the total amount of PLN 2,740 (equivalent of EUR 700).
- As
it has already been indicated above, the Government contested the
claim in its entirety.
- Regard
being had to the documents in its possession and to its case law,
the Court considers that the sum claimed should be awarded in full.
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
- Dismisses the Government's request to strike the
application out of its list of cases;
- 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 11,000
(eleven thousand euros) in respect of non pecuniary damage and
EUR 700 (seven hundred euros) for costs and expenses, plus any tax
that may be chargeable, to be converted into the currency of the
respondent State 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 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 30 November 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
