FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7617/03
by Rafał GROCHULSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10 July 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 12 February 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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Rafał Grochulski, is a Polish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Łódź. 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 an unspecified date in 1997 criminal proceedings against the applicant and five other co-defendants were instituted. They were charged with bribery and concealment of documents.
Between the first hearing and the first-instance judgment the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) scheduled almost 50 hearings but most of them were adjourned.
On 28 April 2000 the Łódź District Court gave judgment and convicted the applicant.
The applicant and the co-defendants appealed.
On 3 April 2001 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.
On 6 August 2004 the Łódź District Court gave the second judgment. The applicant again appealed.
The case is pending appeal before the Regional Court.
2. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s complaints under the 2004 Act.
On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Łódź Regional Court under section 5 of 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”). He sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Bydgoszcz District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN).
On 17 November 2004 the Łódź Regional Court gave a decision and acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings. It found that many of the scheduled hearings had been adjourned for objective reasons but “many more had simply been wasted”. The proceedings had lasted far longer than was necessary to examine the charges and close the case. Furthermore, it held that the applicant and other co-defendants had not significantly contributed to the length of the proceedings. At the same time, however, the Regional Court refused to grant the applicant any just satisfaction, holding that “it had found no reason to do so” and that “the excessive length of the proceedings, although obvious, had not been so important as to grant the applicant’s additional financial claims.”
3. Other proceedings
The applicant was also involved in three other sets of proceedings.
(a) Proceedings for payment
On 30 September 1997 the Zgierz District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for payment against his former employer. The applicant appealed and, on 24 March 1998, the Łódź Regional Court dismissed his appeal. A cassation appeal was not available.
(b) Proceedings for a housing allowance
On 10 January 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s claim against the decision of the Łódź Self-Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze) refusing to grant him a housing allowance (dodatek mieszkaniowy). On 25 March 2003 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Trybunał Konstytucyjny). On 29 October 2002 the Constitutional Court refused to examine the complaint on the merits. The applicant appealed and, on 28 January 2003, the Constitutional Court upheld its decision.
(c) Proceedings under the 2004 Act
On 20 September 2004 the applicant lodged with the Radom Regional Court a complaint about the excessive length of certain enforcement proceedings, relying on section 5 of the 2004 Act. The enforcement proceedings were discontinued on 24 March 2003. On 8 October 2004 the Radom Regional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint, finding that the enforcement proceedings had been terminated before the entry into force of the 2004 Act.
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 and the judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about a violation of his right to have the criminal charge against him determined within a reasonable time.
As regards the proceedings for payment, the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 14 of the Convention that the proceedings had been unfair and that he had been discriminated against.
As regards the proceedings for a housing allowance, the applicant invoked Article 13 of the Convention, claiming that the Constitutional Court, by its refusal to examine his complaint on the merits, had deprived him of his right to an effective remedy.
As regards the enforcement proceedings, the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time had been violated.
THE LAW
On 21 May 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN 10,000 (ten thousand Polish zlotys) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, 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 and 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 on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
On 22 May 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Agent of the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 10,000 (ten thousand Polish zlotys) to Mr Rafał Grochulski with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, 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 and 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 on 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 a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties and considers that the matter has been resolved (Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued. Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
T.L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy