FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF GŁOWACKA AND KRÓLICKA v. POLAND
(Application no. 1730/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 December 2010
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Głowacka and Królicka v. Poland,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Ljiljana Mijović, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 16 November 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 1730/08) 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 two Polish nationals, Ms Danuta Glowacka (“first applicant”) and Mrs Ewa Królicka (“the second applicant”), on 30 November 2007
2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
3. On 17 December 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 was assigned to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The first applicant was born in 1943 and the second applicant in 1948 respectively. They both live in Chrzanów, Poland.
5. The applicants' late parents owned a plot of land in Chrzanów. On 14 April 1980 part of that land was taken over by the Chrzanów Municipality for the purpose of constructing a bus station there.
6. On 29 May 1992 the Katowice Governor declared that the Chrzanów Municipality had acquired ex lege the ownership of the plots of land in question.
7. On 24 May 1994 the applicants lodged an application with the Katowice Governor's Office asking for reconsideration of the 1980 decision. On 22 November 1994 the Katowice Governor gave a decision and refused the applicants' request.
8. On the applicants' appeal, on 8 July 1997, the President of the Office for Housing and Town Development quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.
9. On 13 August 1997 the municipality appealed against this decision to the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court. On 28 September 1999 the Warsaw Regional Administerative Court dismissed the municipality's appeal.
10. On 21 November 2000 the Malopolski Governer (who had meanwhile become competent to examine the case) refused the applicants' request for reconsideration of the 1980's decision. On the parties' subsequent appeal, the President of the Office for Housing and Town Development again quashed the first-instance decision on 31 January 2001.
11. On 9 August 2001 the Governor for the third time refused the applicants' request. On 7 December 2001 the President of the Office for Housing and Town Development once again quashed the first-instance decision.
12. On 26 July 2002 the Governor for the fourth time refused the applicants' application. On 10 June 2003 on the parties' appeal, the President of the Office for Housing and Town Development quashed the Governor's decision.
13. On 23 October 2003 the Governor for the fifth time refused to declare the decision of 1980 null and void.
14. On 6 February 2004 the Minister of Infrastructure (meanwhile competent to examine the case) upheld the first-instance decision. On a parties' subsequent appeal, on 6 May 2005 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court quashed the latter decision.
15. On 2 January 2006 the applicants complained to the Minister of Transport and Construction about the delay in the proceedings. On 20 January 2006 the Minister dismissed their complaint as manifestly ill‑founded since meanwhile the Governor had delivered a decision.
16. On 12 January 2006 the Governor gave its sixth decision in the applicants' case and declared the decision of 1980 null and void. On the municipality's appeal, on 26 April 2006 the Minister of Transport quashed the first-instance decision. On 10 October 2006 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court quashed the Minister's decision. On 22 March 2007 the Minister upheld the Governor's decision of 12 January 2006. On 30 May 2007 the Minister's decision became final since none of the parties appealed.
17. On 6 February 2008, upon their requests, the Kraków Governor informed the applicants that even though the decision of 1980 had been declared null and void, the applicants' names could not be entered in the Land Register because the decision of 29 May 1992 remained valid and the local municipality was still indicated as the rightful owner.
18. On 4 March 2008 the applicants filed a motion for reopening of the proceedings terminated by the decision of 29 May 1992.
19. On 9 April 2008 the Małopolski Governor decided to reopen the proceedings.
20. On 24 April 2008 the applicants applied to the Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration to declare the decision of 29 May 1992 null and void. On 16 June 2008 the Małopolski Governor declared that the decision of 1992 had been given contrary to the law then in force. On 29 October 2008 the Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration declared the decision of 1992 null and void. The Chrzanów Municipality lodged a motion for reconsideration of the case. On 29 January 2009 the Minister upheld its previous decision. On 9 April 2009 the Minister's decision became final since none of the parties appealed.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
21. 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 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
22. On 27 July 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 applicants' rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as a result of the unreasonable length of the administrative proceedings in which the applicants had been involved. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Government proposed to award each of the applicants 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (the equivalent of approximately 2,500 euros (EUR)). The Government invited the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
23. The applicants disagreed with the Government's proposal and maintained that the sum proposed was unacceptably low.
24. 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).
25. 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).
26. On the facts and for the reasons set out above, in particular the amount of compensation proposed to the applicants, 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).
27. 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
28. 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...”
29. The period to be taken into consideration began on 24 May 1994 and ended on 29 January 2009. It thus lasted fourteen years and eight months.
A. Admissibility
30. 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
31. The Government did not submit observations on the merits of the application.
32. 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).
33. 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).
34. 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.
35. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
36. 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
37. The applicants claimed in total 24,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 16,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
38. The Government contested these claims.
39. 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 considers that the applicants must have sustained non‑pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards each of the applicants EUR 6,800 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
40. The applicant did not make any claim for costs and expenses involved in the proceedings.
C. Default interest
41. 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. Rejects the Government's request to strike the application out of its list;
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 each of the applicants, within three months, EUR 6,800 (six thousand eight hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into Polish zlotys 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 applicants' claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 December 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş AracıLjiljana Mijović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy