FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 12372/03
by Piotr DOMAGAŁA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 March 2003,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Piotr Domagała, is a Polish national who was born in 1942 and lives in Katowice, Poland. 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.
In 1964 the applicant was a victim of an accident which occurred at his workplace in the “Wieczorek” mine. Subsequently, the applicant received a pension in connection with the work accident.
On 6 July 1992 the applicant lodged a civil action for compensation and a pension against his former employer.
On 26 October 1993 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) partly granted his action and awarded the applicant a pension. The defendant appealed.
On 29 March 1994 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case.
On 22 December 1995 the Katowice District Court again partly granted the applicant’s action and awarded him a pension. The defendant appealed.
On 4 June 1996 the Regional Court partly quashed the judgment and remitted the remainder of the case to the District Court.
On 23 October 2000 the Katowice District Court gave a judgment. The court dismissed the action. The applicant appealed against the judgment.
On 12 April 2001 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the appeal.
On 12 June 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed his cassation appeal. The applicant was notified about this decision on 3 October 2002.
On 2 November 2004 the applicant lodged a civil action for damages on account of the unreasonable length of the proceedings without specifying the legal grounds of his claim.
On 10 November 2004 he was invited by the Katowice Regional Court to specify the legal basis of his claim.
On 23 November 2004 the applicant submitted to the Regional Court a statement in which he clarified that his motion should be understood as a complaint about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time under the 2004 Act and a request for payment of PLN 10,000. The applicant further added that in the future he might seek compensation in tort from the State Treasury in a separate set of civil proceedings.
On 24 January 2005 the court rejected the applicant’s complaint. The court established that the 2004 Act had not been applicable as the proceedings complained of had ended before its entry into force. The transitional provision of section 18 of the 2004 Act could not be relied on either, as the applicant had lodged his complaint with the Court after the termination of the domestic proceedings.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings 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 the judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings.
2. In addition, he complained that he did not have a “fair trial”.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained that the civil proceedings in which he was involved had not been concluded within a reasonable time, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government stated that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies.
Pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention:
“The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law ...”
The Court notes that the impugned proceedings came to an end on 12 June 2002, i.e. less than three years before 17 September 2004, the date on which the 2004 Act came into force.
It further observes that, pursuant to section 16 of the 2004 Act, it was open to persons such as the applicant to seek compensation in tort from the State Treasury, relying on Article 417 of the Civil Code for damage caused by the allegedly excessive length of proceedings in which a judicial decision on the merits of the case had already been given (see Turzyński v. Poland (dec.), no. 10453/03, 22 November 2005).
The Court has already examined whether a civil action for damages brought under section 16 of the 2004 Act read together with Article 417 of the Civil Code was an effective remedy in respect of the length of judicial proceedings. It held, having regard to the characteristics of these remedies and notwithstanding the absence of established judicial practice in respect of such claims, that these remedies were effective in respect of persons who on 17 September 2004, when the 2004 Law entered into force, could still lodge such an action with the competent domestic court (see Krasuski v. Poland, judgment of 14 June 2005, §§ 69‑72).
The applicant was informed by the Registry of the possibility of lodging a complaint about the length of the proceedings under section 16 of the 2004 Act read together with Article 417 of the Civil Code. The applicant made an attempt to lodge such an action. However, when asked by the domestic court to clarify his action, the applicant unambiguously submitted that it should be understood as a complaint under the 2004 Act and a request for payment of PLN 10,000. According to domestic law, such complaint was inadmissible under both sections 5 and 18 of the 2004 Act; thus, the domestic court rejected it on 24 January 2005. In his clarification the applicant further specified that he may lodge a civil action in the future. However, he has not availed himself of this remedy.
It follows that the complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies
2. With regard to the applicant’s assertion that the proceedings in his case were unfair, the Court reiterates that it is not called upon to deal with errors of fact and law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
The Court observes that the applicant does not allege any particular failure to respect his right to a fair hearing. Assessing the civil proceedings in the applicant’s case as a whole, it finds no indication that they were unfairly conducted.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
In view of the above, the Court considers that Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to this case.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
T.L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy