FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF DEEG v. POLAND
(Application no. 39489/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 September 2010
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Deeg v. Poland,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Giovanni Bonello, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ján Šikuta, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 31 August 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 39489/08) 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 Wojciech Deeg (“the applicant”), on 11 August 2008.
2. The applicant was represented by Ms B. Zwara, a lawyer practising in Gdańsk. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. On 15 June 2009 the President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No. 14, the application is assigned to a Committee of three Judges.
4. On 8 February 2010 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration and invited the Court to strike out the application, in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The applicant filed an objection.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicant was born in 1981 and is currently detained at a remand centre in Gdańsk.
A. Main proceedings
6. On 26 November 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a robbery. Subsequently several sets of criminal proceedings were instituted against him under the supervision of the Gdańsk District Prosecutor. They were all later joined to be conducted together by the prosecutor's decision of 12 April 1999.
7. On 26 June 1999 the Gdańsk District Prosecutor officially launched a criminal investigation against the applicant.
8. On 25 October 2005 the applicant was indicted before the Gdańsk District Court on an initial charge.
9. The first hearing, scheduled for 24 January 2006, was cancelled due to the absence of the applicant and the co-accused.
10. On 1 March 2006 the Gdańsk District Court quashed the applicant's detention.
11. The next two hearings, listed for 11 April and 17 May 2006, were cancelled due to the absence of the applicant and the co-accused.
12. On 17 May 2006 the applicant was again detained on remand by the decision of the Gdańsk District Court; however, following the judgment of the Gdańsk District Court given in another set of criminal proceedings the applicant started to serve a sentence of four years' imprisonment.
13. At the hearing held on 6 July 2006 the court ordered that an expert's report on the applicant's mental health be prepared.
14. Between 31 August 2006 and 6 June 2007 the court held seven hearings, of which three were cancelled (one was adjourned due to the applicant's illness whereas the other because it was not possible to secure the applicant's transport from prison).
15. On 3 August 2007 the case was assigned to another judge who held the first hearing on 23 October 2007.
16. The hearings, scheduled for 14 and 18 December 2007, were adjourned as the applicant filed a motion for access to the case-file.
17. At the hearing held on 19 December 2007 witnesses were heard.
18. The hearing scheduled for 13 February 2008 was adjourned.
19. The next hearings were held on 5 August, 17 October and 25 November 2008 and 15 January 2009.
20. On 22 January 2009 the Gdańsk District Court gave a judgment sentencing the applicant to two years and three months' imprisonment. He appealed.
21. On 26 June 2009 the Gdańsk Regional Court upheld the judgment given in the first-instance.
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
22. On 11 April 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Gdańsk Regional Court 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”). He sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Gdańsk District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN).
23. On 10 June 2008 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the complaint. The court observed that the length of the proceedings in the applicant's case could not be considered as unreasonable. It further held that the trial court could not be held responsible for delays caused by the absence of witnesses. It referred to the complexity of the case and the number of witnesses and held that the proceedings had been conducted diligently.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
24. 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
25. On 8 February 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. 1,250 euros (EUR)). The Government invited the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
26. 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.
27. 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).
28. 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).
29. 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).
30. 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
31. The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings in their entirety 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 ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
32. The Government failed to submit observations on the merits of the case.
33. The period to be taken into consideration began on 26 November 1998 with the applicant's arrest and ended on 26 June 2009. It thus lasted ten years and seven months for two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
34. 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
35. 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).
36. 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 Gdańsk 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).
37. 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
38. The applicant further complained of the excessive length of his detention ordered in the course of the criminal proceedings. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
39. The Court observes that the applicant's detention was eventually discontinued on 2 March 2006 (see paragraph 10 above). Although it was subsequently reapplied on 17 May 2006, simultaneously the applicant commenced serving an imprisonment penalty imposed in another set of criminal proceedings (see paragraph 12 above). The latter period therefore falls outside the scope of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and a complaint in this regard is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. As to the preceding period the Court notes that the applicant complained outside the statutory six-month time-limit and it must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
40. Lastly, the applicant complained that he had no right to appeal against the decision of the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissing his complaint of the excessive length of the proceedings. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“Everyone (...) shall have an effective remedy before a national authority (...)”
41. At the outset the Court reiterates that it has already found in many cases that the 2004 Act does in general provide the applicant with an effective remedy in respect of a complaint about the length of the proceedings (see Charzyński v. Poland (dec.), cited above). The mere fact that the complaint, under the 2004 Act, is examined at one court instance does not make it ineffective for the purpose of Article 13 of the Convention. Moreover, the applicant is entitled to make fresh complaints, provided that he lodges them at one-year intervals, which does not seem to be an unreasonable limitation (see Hermanowicz v. Poland, no. 44581/08, § 39, 24 November 2009).
42. In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that in the circumstances of the present case it cannot be said that the applicant's right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention has not been respected. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
43. 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
44. The applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
45. The Government failed to express an opinion on the matter within the prescribed time-limit.
46. The Court, ruling on an equitable basis, awards the applicant EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
47. The applicant also claimed EUR 4,000 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
48. The Government failed to express an opinion on the matter within the prescribed time-limit.
49. 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 represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 900 under this head.
C. Default interest
50. 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
1. Dismisses the Government's request to strike the case out of the list;
2. Declares the complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
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 the applicant, within three months EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 900 (nine hundred euros) in respect of 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;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 September 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş AracıGiovanni Bonello Deputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy