CASE OF JUREWICZ v. POLAND

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF JUREWICZ v. POLAND

(Application no. 18500/10)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG 

5 July 2011

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

In the case of Jurewicz v. Poland,

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

Zdravka Kalaydjieva, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 14 June 2011,

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

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 18500/10) 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 Mariusz Jurewicz (“the applicant”), on 12 March 2010.

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

3. On 6 September 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 1981 and lives in Warsaw.

A. First set of criminal proceedings against the applicant

5. On 19 April 2006 the applicant was charged with an unspecified offence.

6. On 9 August 2006 the Prosecutor changed the original charges and charged the applicant with aggravated extortion. The applicant was additionally charged with drug trafficking committed between 2002 and 2003 in Warsaw.

7. On 3 January 2007 the prosecution lodged a bill of indictment with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The applicant was indicted as charged. The bill of indictment comprised charges against 17 accused.

8. On 21 May 2007 the court held the first hearing.

9. Hearings scheduled for 9, 10 and 18 July 2007 were adjourned because of the applicant’s counsel illness.

10. Between May 2007 and February 2010 the trial court held some 30 hearings.

11. On three occasions the applicant unsuccessfully sought the withdrawal of the judge dealing with his case.

12. The proceedings are still pending before the Warsaw Regional Court.

B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act

13. On 22 December 2009 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).

14. On 23 February 2010 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint stating that that the proceedings had been conducted with the requisite speed and without undue delay.

C. Second set of criminal proceedings against the applicant

15. On 30 March 2009 the Warsaw Regional Court convicted the applicant of drug trafficking committed between 2002 and 2003 in Łowicz.

16. On 9 December 2010 the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance court judgment.

D. Third set of criminal proceedings against the applicant and proceedings for retrospective leave

17. On 8 January 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of vehicle break-in and theft.

18. On 14 January 2004 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) convicted the applicant of vehicle break-in and theft and sentenced him to three years’ and six months’ imprisonment.

19. On 20 May 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this judgment.

20. On 17 April 2009 the applicant requested the Warsaw Regional Court to appoint a legal-aid lawyer with a view to lodging a cassation appeal.

21. On 6 February 2010 the legal-aid lawyer informed the applicant that he had not found any grounds for lodging a cassation appeal.

22. On an unspecified date, the applicant requested the court for leave to lodge a cassation appeal out of time and to appoint another legal-aid lawyer with a view to lodging a cassation appeal.

23. On 1 April 2010 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request finding no basis for retrospective leave. It further refused to appoint another legal-aid lawyer.

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 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. 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 first set 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 April 2006 and has not yet ended. It has thus lasted five years and one month at one level 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 firstly observes that the case could be considered complex, regard being had to the fact that it involved a number of defendants and voluminous evidence. However, it considers that this in itself cannot justify the overall length of the proceedings.

31. As regards the conduct of the applicant, the Court observes that on three occasions the applicant sought the withdrawal of the judge dealing with his case (see paragraph 11 above), it cannot however be established that the applicant substantially contributed to the delays in the proceedings.

32. With respect to the conduct of the authorities, the Court considers that the investigation was completed by the prosecution authorities within a relatively short period of time. The Court further notes that between May 2007 and February 2010 the trial court held only 30 hearings that is less than one hearing per month (see paragraph 10 above).

33. The Court would point out that the duty to administer justice expeditiously was incumbent in the first place on the domestic authorities. Notwithstanding the significant difficulties which they faced in the present case due to its complexity, the domestic authorities were required to organise the trial efficiently and ensure that the Convention guarantees were fully respected in the proceedings. Moreover, the Court notes that the proceedings, which have already lasted five years and one month, are still pending before the first-instance court.

34. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the overall length of the proceedings, the Court considers that the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention has not been respected. Consequently, there has been a violation of this provision.

II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

35. Invoking Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant further complained about the unfairness of the third set of the criminal proceedings against him. The Court notes that the applicant failed to lodge a cassation appeal against the second-instance court judgment. It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

36. The applicant also alleged that by dismissing his request for a leave to lodge a cassation appeal out of time the Warsaw Regional Court denied him access to a court. The Court notes that the applicant failed to lodge an interlocutory appeal against that decision. It follows that this complaint must also be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies.

37. The applicant complained that the charge of drug trafficking in the first set criminal proceedings infringed his right not to be tried twice for the same offence, insofar as he had been tried and convicted for the same offence in the second set of criminal proceedings. The Court notes that the applicant was tried twice for the offence of drug trafficking which he had however committed in different cities (see paragraphs 6 and 15 above). 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.

38. Finally, in its letter of 20 September 2010, the applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that during his arrest on 8 January 2003 he was beaten by a police officer. It follows that this complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

39. 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

40. The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage.

41. The Government contested these claims as exorbitant.

42. 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 3,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.

B. Costs and expenses

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

C. Default interest

44. 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. Declares the complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

3. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 3,000 (three thousand 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;

4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 July 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Fatoş AracıZdravka Kalaydjieva
Deputy RegistrarPresident

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy