CASE OF GUT v. POLAND

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF GUT v. POLAND

(Application no. 32440/08)

JUDGMENT

This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court

in a judgment of 7 February 2012

STRASBOURG

18 January 2011

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Gut v. Poland,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Ján Šikuta, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Vincent A. de Gaetano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 14 December 2010,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 32440/08) 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 Henryk Gut (“the applicant”), on 30 June 2008.

2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

3. On 12 January 2010 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 applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Biskupiec.

A. Criminal proceedings against the applicant (charges of arson)

5. On 19 June 2002 the applicant was arrested on charges of arson and uttering threats. On an unknown later date he was indicted before the Biskupiec District Court.

6. Between 19 March and 19 June 2006 the applicant was detained on remand.

7. On 3 June 2003 the District Court convicted him as charged and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment.

8. On 26 June 2003 the applicant appealed against his conviction.

9. On 16 October 2003 the Olsztyn Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case.

10. Between 19 October 2005 and 29 March 2006 the District Court held seven hearings. On several occasions the applicant who was duly summoned, refused to appear at hearings. However, the court proceeded with the trial in his absence.

11. On 31 March 2006 the Biskupiec District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment.

12. On 14 September 2006 the Olsztyn Regional Court again quashed the judgment and remitted the case.

13. On 3 June 2009 the Gizycko District Court again convicted the applicant as charged.

14. On 27 July 2009 the applicant filed his appeal against this judgment. It appears that the proceedings are pending before the Olsztyn Regional Court.

B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act

15. On 16 and 21 August 2007 the applicant lodged complaints with the Białystok Court of Appeal 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”). The applicant sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Olsztyn Regional Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction.

16. On 7 November 2007 the Court of Appeal gave a decision and dismissed the applicant’s complaint.

17. On 19 June 2008 the Olsztyn Regional Court dismissed yet another complaint under 2004 Act lodged by the applicant. The court considered that there had been no significant delays in the proceedings.

C. Other proceedings against the applicant

18. The applicant was also involved in several other sets of criminal and civil proceedings, in particular, proceedings concerning assaulting a judge and contempt of court. The proceedings were terminated respectively on 24 October 2005 and 14 March 2007 by the Olsztyn Regional Court.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

19. 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

20. On 25 October 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 criminal proceedings against the applicant. In respect of non‑pecuniary damage, the Government proposed to award the applicant 7,000 Polish zlotys (PLN). The Government invited the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The applicant objected to the proposal.

21. 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).

22. 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).

23. 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).

24. 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

25. 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 ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

26. The Government contested that argument.

27. The period to be taken into consideration began on 19 June 2002 and has not yet ended. It has thus already lasted eight years and four months for two levels of jurisdiction.

A. Admissibility

28. 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

29. 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).

30. 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).

31. 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 and the overall length of the proceedings, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

32. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.

III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

33. Lastly, without invoking any provisions of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been persecuted by the judicial authorities. He also complained about the outcome of the proceedings concerning assault of the judge.

34. The Court finds that the facts of the case do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention. It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

35. 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

36. The applicant claimed 500,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

37. The Government contested the claim.

38. 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 applicant EUR 3,600 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.

B. Costs and expenses

39. The applicant did not make any claim for costs and expenses involved in the proceedings.

C. Default interest

40. 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 complaint concerning the excessive length of the criminal proceedings concerning charges of arson 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 3,600 (three thousand six 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 amount 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 18 January 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Fatoş AracıJán Šikuta
Deputy RegistrarPresident

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy