FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32563/09
by Andrzej DASCHKE
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17 May 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Ljiljana Mijović, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 June 2009,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 16 December 2010 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 Andrzej Daschke, is a Polish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Gdynia. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Puchalski, a lawyer practising in Gdynia. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 28 July 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a robbery and held in pre-trial detention.
In October 2002 the applicant was released from custody.
On 30 March 2001 the prosecution lodged a bill of indictment with the Gdynia District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The bill of indictment comprised charges against 6 accused. The applicant was charged with robbery.
The first hearing in the case scheduled for 5 June 2001 was adjourned.
Out of 86 hearings scheduled in the case between 5 June 2001 and 14 January 2010, only 32 took place and 54 were adjourned or cancelled.
On four occasions the case was referred to a different presiding judge, lastly on 1 July 2009.
Hearings scheduled for 29 September, 5 November and 21 December 2009 were adjourned.
On 14 January 2010 the proceedings started anew.
The proceedings are still pending before the Gdynia District Court.
2. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
On 23 December 2009 the applicant lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) 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”).
On 2 February 2010 the Gdańsk Regional Court acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings before the Gdynia District Court. In particular, it referred to the period between 19 August 2003 and 9 September 2005 stating that during these two years the trial court heard only the accused and one witness. The court drew attention to the fact that the case had been examined in turn by four presiding judges which significantly contributed to the overall length of the proceedings.
The court awarded the applicant 2,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 500 euros (EUR)) in just satisfaction.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial and enforcement proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are stated in the Court’s decisions in the 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 in its the judgments in cases of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V and Krzysztofiak v. Poland, no. 38018/07, §§ 23‑31, 20 April 2010.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive 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...”
By letter dated 16 December 2010 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 ‑ its acknowledgement of the excessive length of the applicant’s proceedings within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicant the sum of 11,000 PLN which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case-law as well as particular circumstances of the case. (...) 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. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. ...”
In a letter of 18 January 2011 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low.
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‑V; 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)).
The Court further notes that this decision constitutes a final resolution of this application only in so far as the proceedings before the Court are concerned. It is without prejudice to the use by the applicant of other remedies before the domestic courts to claim further compensation in respect of the length of the impugned proceedings, which are still pending before the Gdynia District Court.
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 under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 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 AracıLjiljana Mijović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy