FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32588/06
by Władysław GODYSZ
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21 September 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Ljiljana Mijović, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 August 2006,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 28 June 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 Władysław Godysz, is a Polish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Siemanowice. 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 April 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of bribery, several counts of evasion of tax and customs duties and several counts of forgery, committed in an organised criminal gang. On 29 April 2005 the Katowice District Court remanded him in custody.
Subsequently, twenty-one other persons were detained and charged in connection with the investigation against the applicant.
In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged on 22 July 2005, 20 October 2005, 20 January 2006, 29 March 2006, 28 June 2006, 27 September 2006, 4 January 2007 and 4 April 2007.
On 17 April 2007 the bill of indictment was lodged with the Katowice District Court. The applicant was charged with bribery, several counts of evasion of tax and customs duties, several counts of forgery and membership of an organised criminal gang. The bill of indictment also concerned twenty-one other persons.
On 13 July 2007 [III K 1130/07] the Katowice District Court transferred the case to the Katowice Regional Court as it had meanwhile become competent to examine it. On 8 October 2007 [V K 259/07] the Katowice Regional Court transferred the case back to the District Court.
Further decisions extending the applicant's detention were taken on 25 July 2007, 24 October 2007 and 27 February 2008.
In a decision given on 24 October 2007, the Katowice Court of Appeal Court criticised the manner in which the investigation had been conducted. It also referred to delays in the proceedings which amounted to six months. It acknowledged that almost all the evidence had been gathered and that the risk that the applicant would tamper with evidence had been marginal.
On 21 November 2007 the Katowice District Court [III K 2245/07] asked the Katowice Court of Appeal whether the case could be transferred to the Regional Court.
On 28 November 2007 [II AKo 218/07] the Court of Appeal gave a decision and ordered that the Katowice Regional Court consider the case as the court of first-instance. On 17 December 2007 the Katowice Regional Court asked the Supreme Court to transfer the case to another Regional Court. The Supreme Court refused this request and in its decision of 7 February 2008 [IV KO 125/07] ordered the Katowice Regional Court to proceed with the case.
In a decision given on 27 February 2008, the Katowice Court of Appeal ruled that the applicant could be released on bail on payment of security of 800,000 Polish zlotys. The applicant requested the court to reduce the amount of bail. On 28 March 2008 the court reduced it to 300,000 Polish zlotys. The applicant paid the security and he was released on 30 April 2008.
The first hearing was scheduled for 21 October 2008.
The criminal proceedings are currently pending before the first-instance court.
2. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
On 18 August 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Katowice Court of Appeal 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 postÿpowaniu sÿdowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwÿoki) (“the 2004 Act”). The applicant sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Katowice Regional Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 850,000 Polish zlotys (PLN).
On 15 October 2008 the Katowice Court of Appeal [II S 8/08] dismissed the applicant's motion.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
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.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention about the excessive length of his detention on remand.
2. He further complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings.
3. He also alleged, invoking Articles 5 § 4, 6 § 2 and 6 § 3 (c) and (d), that he had not had access to the files of his case.
THE LAW
A. Length of proceedings
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 28 June 2010 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 the unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement of the unreasonable duration of the criminal proceedings in which the applicant was involved in the meaning of article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
In these circumstances, and having regard to the particular facts of the case, the Government declare that they offer to pay to the applicant the amount of PLN 12,000, 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 of 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 of Human Rights. 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 the rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Ban during the default period plus three percentage points
...”
In a letter of 13 July 2010 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government's declaration was unacceptably low and strongly objected to striking the case out of the list.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application or part thereof 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 or part thereof 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; 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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c).
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 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 applicant of other remedies to obtain redress for any delay in the proceedings which may occur after the date of this decision.
B. Remaining complaints
1. The applicant complained that the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which provides as follows:
“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
The Court reiterates that under Article 35 of the Convention it shall not deal with any application that is substantially the same as a matter that it has already examined. The Court recalls that on 28 April 2009 it delivered a judgment in the case Godysz v. Poland (no. 46949/07, 28 April 2009) which concerned the excessive length of the applicant's pre-trial detention.
It follows that this part of the application is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court within the meaning of Article 35 § 2 (b) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
2. The applicant also complained under Articles 5 § 4, 6 § 2 and 6 § 3 (c) and (d), that he had not had access to the files of his case.
However, the Court considers that this complaint lacks substantiation. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government's declaration in respect of the complaint 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 so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Fatoş AracıLjiljana Mijović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy