FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 6809/03
by Dariusz CZAJKOWSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Giovanni Bonello, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 February 2003,
Having regard to the partial decision of 16 October 2007,
Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 16 May 2008 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Dariusz Czajkowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Kościan. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 18 February 1993 the applicant was arrested by the police.
On 20 February 1993 the Poznań District Prosecutor decided to detain the applicant on remand in view of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a burglary at the “Plus” warehouse from where he had stolen 120,000,000 (old) zlotys (12,000 Polish zlotys, PLN) and goods worth PLN 6,000.
On 14 May 1993 the applicant was indicted before the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).
On 2 August 1993 the applicant was released from detention.
On 18 November 1993 the Poznań Regional Court gave a judgment. The applicant was acquitted of all charges.
The prosecutor lodged an appeal against the judgment.
On 21 April 1994 the Poznań Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the District Prosecutor.
On 29 November 1994 the prosecutor decided to stay the proceedings.
On 2 January 1996 the prosecutor decided to resume the proceedings against the applicant. The prosecutor established that it was necessary to hear two witnesses but their addresses were unknown. Thus, on 19 January 1996 the prosecutor again stayed the proceedings.
It appears that the applicant inquired about the progress of the investigation and about the reasons for the delay.
On 16 June 2003 the Poznań District Prosecutor replied to the applicant’s letters in which he had complained about the delay in the investigation against him and the lack of information about his case. He informed the applicant that the proceedings had been stayed since it had proved impossible to establish the addresses of the witnesses. On 3 December 2003 the Poznań Appellate Prosecutor in another letter dismissed the applicant’s allegations that the delay in his case had been caused by the inactivity of the prosecution service.
On 3 March 2004 the investigation against the applicant was resumed and one witness was heard. However, on the same date the District Prosecutor decided to stay the proceedings again.
On 23 September 2004 the Poznań Regional Prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision to stay the proceedings.
The investigation against the applicant remains stayed before the Poznań District Prosecutor.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
Article 6 §1
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Furthermore, he complained, invoking Article 8 of the Convention, that the lengthy criminal proceedings against him had ruined his private and family life.
By letter dated 16 May 2008 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“...the Government hereby wish to express – by way of the unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicant was involved. At the same time, the Government admit that in the particular circumstances of the applicant’s case, the applicant can claim to be a victim of violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention.
In these circumstances, and having regard to the particular facts of the case, the Government declare that they offer to pay the applicant the amount of PLN 20,000, which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case-law.
The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, will be free from any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default periods plus three percentage points.
The Government would respectfully suggest that the above declaration be accepted by the Court as ‘any other reason’ justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention....”
In a letter of 29 May 2008 the applicant expressed the view that the Government’s declaration was unacceptable and asked the Court to give a ruling on the merits of his application.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006‑....; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c).
Since the proceedings concerned are still pending before the domestic courts, the Court’s strike-out decision is without prejudice to use by the applicant of other remedies to obtain redress for any delay in the proceedings which may occur after the date of this decision.
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Fatoş AracıGiovanni Bonello
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy