FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF PURPIAN sp. z o.o. v. POLAND
(Application no. 2311/10)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 December 2012
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Purpian sp. z o.o. v. Poland,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
David Thór Björgvinsson, President,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 27 November 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 2311/10) 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 company Purpian sp. z o.o. (“the applicant company”), on 16 December 2009.
2. The applicant company was represented by Mr. M. Brząkała, the president of the management board. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz, succeeded by Ms J. Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. On 9 December 2011 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant company, Purpian sp. z o.o., is a Polish limited liability company having its registered office in Odolanów.
A. Main proceedings
5. On 12 November 1997 the applicant company instituted civil proceedings against a certain Z. K. for payment.
6. In 1999 and 2000 six hearings were adjourned due to the applicant company’s absence. Furthermore the hearings scheduled for 10 May and 20 September 2005, 10 October 2006, 20 March 2007, 26 March and 22 April 2008 were adjourned or cancelled on the applicant company’s request.
7. On 24 July 2008 the Ostrów Wielkopolski District Court gave a judgment. Both the applicant company and the other party to the proceedings appealed against the judgment.
8. By a judgment of 11 February 2010 the Kalisz Regional Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the first-instance judgment.
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
9. On an unspecified date the applicant company lodged a complaint 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”). It sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and claimed 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in compensation.
10. By a decision of 6 January 2005 the Kalisz Regional Court held that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and awarded the applicant company PLN 2,000 in compensation.
11. On 15 April 2009 the applicant company lodged another complaint under the 2004 Act.
12. By a decision of 26 May 2009 the Kalisz Regional Court dismissed the complaint, holding that the proceedings had been conducted in a correct and timely manner. The court further expressed a view that the length of the proceedings had been largely due to the conduct of the parties, including that of the applicant company.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
13. 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 (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V; Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, 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
14. On 25 May 2012 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration requesting the Court to strike out the application in so far as it relates to the applicant company’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
15. The applicant company did not agree with the Government’s proposal and requested the Court to continue the examination of the case.
16. Having studied the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration, the Court considers, in the particular circumstances of the case, that it does not 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 Magoch v. Poland, no. 29539/07, § 19, 2 February 2010; and Dochnal v. Poland, no. 31622/07, § 69, 18 September 2012).
17. 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
18. The applicant company 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...”
19. The Government, having submitted a unilateral declaration, failed to submit any observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. They did, however, stress that twelve hearings before the Ostrów Wielkopolski District Court were adjourned on the applicant company’s request or due to its absence.
20. The period to be taken into consideration began on 12 November 1997 and ended on 11 February 2010. It thus lasted twelve years and three months for two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
21. 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
22. 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).
23. 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).
24. 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. The Court agrees that the conduct of the applicant did in part contribute to the overall length of the proceedings. However, it finds that a duty to administer justice expeditiously was incumbent on the national courts. In this connection, the domestic courts have at their disposal numerous measures for disciplining the parties in a given trial. 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
25. With regard to the alleged lack of an “effective remedy” in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings, it should be recalled that the Court has already found the remedies provided for by the 2004 Act to be effective (see Charzyński v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 12‑23, 1 March 2005, ECHR 2005‑V; Figiel v. Poland (no. 1), no. 38190/05, §§ 25‑30, 17 July 2008; and Figiel v. Poland (no. 2), no. 38206/05, §§ 29‑34, 16 September 2008). It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
26. As to the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, insofar as the applicant company can be understood as complaining that the alleged violation resulted from the excessive length of the proceedings, it is proposed to hold that the facts complained of do not give rise to any separate issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and thus it is not necessary to examine the complaint separately from the main complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings (see Beller v. Poland, no. 51837/99, § 74, 1 February 2005).
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
27. 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
28. The applicant claimed 17,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
29. The Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
30. 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, and having regard to the amount already awarded to the applicant under the 2004 Act (see paragraph 10 above), it awards the applicant EUR 5,900 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
31. The applicant did not make any claim for costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings.
C. Default interest
32. 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 the list in so far as it relates to the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
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 that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 5,900 (five thousand nine hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage 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 amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 December 2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş AracıDavid Thór Björgvinsson
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy