FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF BAŃCZYK
AND SZTUKA v. POLAND
(Application no. 20920/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 November 2012
This judgment is final. It
may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bańczyk and Sztuka v. Poland,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as
a Committee composed of:
George Nicolaou, President,
Ledi Bianku,
Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges,
and Fatos Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 October 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an application
(no. 20920/09) 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 two Polish
nationals, Mr Józef Bańczyk and Mr Jan Sztuka (“the applicants”), on 10
April 2009.
The applicants were
represented by Mr T. Gurbierz, a lawyer practising in Raciborz. The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J.
Wołąsiewicz, succeeded by Ms J. Chrzanowska, of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
On 13 January 2012
the application was communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule
on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29
§ 1).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicants Mr Józef Bańczyk and Mr Jan
Sztuka were born in 1941 and in 1974 respectively and live in Bienkowice.
A. Criminal proceedings against R.H., M.O., J.R. and
M.B. (case no. II K 815/03)
On 24 November 2003 the prosecution
lodged a bill of indictment with the Kędzierzyn-Koźle District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). R.H., M.O.,
J.R. and M.B were charged with fraud and embezzlement.
On an unspecified date between 17 December 2003
and 10 March 2004 the applicants joined the proceedings as a civil
party and lodged a claim for compensation against the defendants (powództwo adhezyjne).
The bill of indictment was only read out on 14
September 2005. In the following years 8 hearings were adjourned or cancelled
due to various reasons (the health problems of one of the accused, illness of a
defence lawyers, maternity leave of one of the trial judges, etc.).
On 14 September 2011 the
Kędzierzyn-Koźle District Court
acquitted M.O., J.R. and M.B of all charges. On the same date the court
discontinued the proceedings in respect of R.H., who had died in April 2011. As
regards the applicants’ civil claims, they were left without examination.
On 19 January 2012 the applicants
appealed against the first-instance judgment.
On 12 June 2012 the Opole Regional Court upheld the challenged judgment.
B. Proceedings under the
2004 Act (case no. VI S 21/09)
On 14 April 2009 the applicants lodged with
the Opole Regional Court a complaint 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”).
On 15 June 2009 the Opole Regional Court
dismissed the applicant’s complaint stating that there were no significant
periods of unjustified inactivity for which the Kędzierzyn-Koźle
District Court had been responsible. The court held that the case no. II K
815/03 was a complex one. There were four co-accused, who faced numerous
charges. 136 witnesses needed to be heard. Furthermore, the duration of
proceedings was extended due to R.H.’s health problems, which necessitated many
hearings to be postponed, and due to a maternity leave of one of the trial
judges.
THE LAW
I. THE GOVERNMENT’S
REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THE APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 37 OF THE CONVENTION
On 9 May 2012 the Government submitted
a unilateral declaration similar to that in the case 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 applicants’ rights under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention as a result of the unreasonable length of the proceedings in which
the applicants had been involved. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the
Government proposed to award each of the applicants PLN 18,000 (the
equivalent of approx. EUR 4,400). The Government invited the Court to strike
the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the
Convention.
The applicants did not agree with the Government’s
proposal and requested the Court to continue the examination of the case. They
maintained that the amount offered was too low.
The Court observes that, as it has already held
on many occasions, it may be appropriate under certain circumstances to strike
out an application 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-...,; Scordino v. Italy (no.1) [GC],
no. 36813/97, §§ 193-215, ECHR-2006-...; 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, the Court finds that the Government have failed to provide a
sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the
Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of
the case (see, conversely, 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 its 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 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 refrained from submitting observations on the admissibility and merits of the
complaint.
The period to be taken into consideration began
on 10 March 2004 at the latest and ended on 12 June 2012 when the
second-instance judgment was given. It thus lasted eight years and four months for
two levels 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).
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, by not taking into account the
overall period of the proceedings, the Łódź 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. 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.
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 applicants’ lawyer claimed 65,867.89 zlotys (PLN)
for Jan Sztuka and PLN 99,347.88 for Józef Bańczyk in respect of
pecuniary damage and PLN 30,000 for each applicant in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
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. The Court considers that the applicants must have sustained
non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards each of them EUR 7,500
under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
In the applicants’ claims for pecuniary damage
some claims for costs and expenses were included. They each claimed, in
particular PLN 100 for the court fees they had to pay for their length
complaint lodged under the 2004 Act, PLN 200 for the costs of translation
of some documents submitted to the Court and PLN 7,000 as costs they had
to incur to go on numerous occasions from their domicile to the trial court.
The applicants’ lawyer also produced two invoices for “legal service” for
PLN 2,952 and PLN 4,428. However, he made no particular claim in this
respect; in particular it is unknown whether this invoice concerns the
applicants’ representation before the domestic courts or before 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 are
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the
documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it
reasonable to award each of the applicants the sum of EUR 500 under this head.
C. Default interest
The Court considers it appropriate that the
default interest rate 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
1. Rejects
the Government’s request to strike the application out of its list of cases;
2. Declares the application admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay to each of
the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes
final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the
following amounts:
(i) EUR 7,500 (seven thousand five hundred euros),
plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 500 (five hundred euros), plus any
tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, 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;
5. Dismisses unanimously the remainder of the
applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 November
2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı George
Nicolaou
Deputy Registrar President
