CASE OF KIEŁB v. POLAND

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF KIEŁB v. POLAND

(Application no. 47730/20)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

12 December 2024

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

In the case of Kiełb v. Poland,

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

 Georgios A. Serghides, President,
 Erik Wennerström,
 Alain Chablais, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 21 November 2024,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application against Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 22 October 2020.

2.  The Polish Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

3.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicant complained of the excessive length of administrative proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.

THE LAW

5.  The applicant complained that the length of the administrative proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and that she had no effective remedy in this connection. She relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.

6.  The Government raised a preliminary objection arguing that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available to her under the Polish law, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, they submitted that two decisions of the Rzeszów Regional Administrative Court of 10 January 2006 concerned complaints lodged by the applicant’s parents but not the applicant herself and no appeal against those decisions had been lodged. They also alleged that the applicant had failed to make use of the available remedies provided for complaints about the length of administrative proceedings. The applicant disagreed.

7.  The Court observes that while in the decisions of 10 January 2006 the applicant’s parents were mentioned as complainants, the applicant’s mother (H.K.) only acted as the applicant’s representative. The Court further notes that in the course of more than seventeen years while the administrative proceedings were pending, the applicant several times made use of the remedies provided for in the Code of Administrative Procedure, but they never led to the acceleration of the proceedings in her case.

8. In conclusion, the Court, relying on its case-law (see Wcisło and Cabaj v. Poland, nos. 49725/11 and 79950/13, §§ 165-168, 8 November 2018), considers that, having exhausted the available remedies provided for by the Code of Administrative Procedure, the applicant was not required to embark on yet another attempt to obtain redress. Accordingly, the Court concludes that, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies.

9.  For this reason, the preliminary objection that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies must be dismissed.

10.  The Court further 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 Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

11.  In the leading case of Wcisło and Cabaj, cited above, the Court already found a violation under Article 6 of the Convention in relation to the length of the administrative proceedings.

12.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. 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.

13.  The Court further notes that the applicant did not have at her disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.

14.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention.

15.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Wcisło and Cabaj, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, 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 amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 December 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Georgios A. Serghides
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention

(excessive length of administrative proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.