FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 10281/03
by Ewa FIGIEL and Wojciech FIGIEL
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 8 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Giovanni Bonello, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
David Thór Björgvinsson, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 March 2003,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 15 February 2008 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mrs Ewa Figiel (“the first applicant”) and Mr Wojciech Figiel (“the second applicant”) are Polish nationals who were born in 1956 and 1955 respectively and live in Warsaw. 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. The proceedings instituted by the first applicant
On 5 May 1997 the first applicant lodged a claim for payment of a debt with the Warsaw Regional Court.
On 19 May 1997 she requested the court to exempt her from court fees.
On 12 June 1997 the Warsaw Regional Court refused. She appealed.
On 9 September 1997 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
On 23 October 1997 the first applicant reduced her claim, apparently because of the considerable amount of court fees she would have had to pay had she claimed the original amount.
On 13 November 1997 the Warsaw Regional Court decided to transmit the case to the Warsaw District Court because the amount claimed in the dispute had been reduced.
On 27 January 1999 the court’s decision was served on the first applicant.
Between 13 November 1997 and 27 January 1999 (14 months) the case lay dormant.
On 27 November 1998 the first applicant requested the court to accelerate the proceedings. It appears that she did not receive any reply from the court.
On 19 January 1999 she again requested the court to accelerate the proceedings.
On 9 May 1999 she paid the court fees.
On 16 February 2000 (after 9 months) the Warsaw District Court returned the statement of claim to the first applicant because of her alleged failure to pay court fees.
She appealed and, on 23 March 2001, the Warsaw District Court quashed the decision returning the statement of claim to her.
On 16 March 2001 the first applicant complained about the excessive length of the proceedings to the President of the Warsaw District Court.
On 28 March 2001 the President acknowledged that there had indeed been delays in the proceedings and apologised to the first applicant for the mistake whereby her statement of claim had been returned to her.
On 31 May 2001 the Warsaw District Court gave a partial judgment in default.
On 18 June 2001 the defendant lodged an appeal against the default judgment, but he failed to pay the court fees within the prescribed time‑limit. In consequence, on 25 October 2001, the Warsaw District Court rejected his appeal.
On 19 March 2002 the Warsaw District Court suspended the enforcement of a writ of execution which had been issued in respect of the default judgment.
On 30 April 2002 the first applicant appealed.
On 29 May 2002 the Warsaw Regional Court rejected the appeal.
On 18 June 2002 the first applicant lodged a further appeal.
On 29 November 2002 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the appeal. This decision was served on the first applicant on 8 March 2003 (the case lay dormant between these dates).
At the first applicant’s request, on 12 June 2003 the Warsaw District Court re-instated the time-limit for lodging an appeal against the decision of 19 March 2002.
On 11 December 2003 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the first applicant’s appeal against the decision of 19 March 2002.
Between 11 December 2003 and 8 July 2004 the case lay dormant.
Between 8 July 2004 and 8 December 2004 the District Court held 4 hearings, one of which was adjourned.
The proceedings are still pending.
2. The first applicant’s complaint under the 2004 Act
On 17 December 2004 the first applicant lodged a complaint about the undue length of proceedings 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”). On 2 February 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed her complaint on the ground that on the date of entry into force of the 2004 Act no undue delays in the court’s conduct could be discerned. The court acknowledged that the proceedings before 2004 had been unreasonably lengthy and there had been “long and unnecessary periods of inactivity”. However, the court stressed that the 2004 Act had entered into force on 17 September 2004 and could not be applied to the protracted conduct of court proceedings occurring before that date. The 2004 Act did not contain any provisions that would allow for a contrary interpretation. Having analysed the conduct of the District Court in the period covered since the entry into force of the 2004 Act, the Regional Court found that the proceedings had been conducted with due diligence and within a reasonable time.
3. The proceedings instituted by the second applicant
On 10 November 1997 the second applicant lodged a claim for payment of a debt with the Warsaw District Court.
On 26 September 2002 the Warsaw District Court gave judgment in his favour.
The second applicant did not lodge a claim for damages under section 16 of the 2004 Act read in conjunction with Article 417 of the Civil Code.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
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 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 applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the unreasonable length of the proceedings instituted by the first applicant.
2. They further complained that under the 2004 Act they could not claim compensation for the excessive length of the proceedings before the date of entry into force of the new remedy.
3. The second applicant complained about the unreasonable length of the proceedings in which he was involved.
THE LAW
A. Length of proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect
The applicants complained about the length of the proceedings and the fact that they had no effective remedy at their disposal. They relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provide as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
Article 13
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.
By letter dated 5 February 2008 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of 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 a unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicants were involved. At the same time, the Government admit that in the particular circumstances of the applicants’ case, the applicants’ complaint about the length of the proceedings has not been redressed at the domestic level as required by Article 13 of the Convention.
Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay the applicants PLN 21,000 as just satisfaction, which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case-law, bearing in mind the low value of the applicant’s claim in the domestic proceedings.
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.
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 12 February 2008 the applicants 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 the right to a hearing within a reasonable time and about the lack of an effective remedy capable of providing redress for a breach of this right (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; Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007; Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-IX, §§; and Charzyński v. Poland (dec.) no. 15212/03, HR 2005- ..., §§).
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).
Moreover, in the 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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
Since the proceedings concerned are still pending before the domestic courts, the Court’s strike-out decision is without prejudice to use by the first applicant of other remedies to obtain redress for any delay in the proceedings which may occur after the date of this decision.
B. Second applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the second set of civil proceedings
The second applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of civil proceedings in which he was involved.
However, the second applicant did not lodge a claim for damages under section 16 of the 2004 Act read in conjunction with Article 417 of the Civil Code.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in respect of the first applicant’s complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 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 so far as it relates to the above complaints in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Lawrence EarlyGiovanni Bonello
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy