DECISION
Application no. 6340/04
by Jerzy LESZCZUK
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 April 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 February 2004,
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 Jerzy Leszczuk, is a Polish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Opole. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affaires.
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 1 May 2000 a car driven by the applicant was involved in an accident. The applicant’s car had pulled out from a side road and was hit by a car driven by K., a police officer. Soon after the accident police officers arrived on the scene. Having made preliminary findings, they informed the applicant that they would refer the case to the Prudnik Misdemeanours Board (Kolegium ds. Wykroczeń).
On 19 June 2000 the Prudnik Misdemeanours Board found the applicant guilty of causing a collision and sentenced him to a fine.
On an unspecified date K. notified the Prudnik Misdemeanour Board about the injuries he had suffered as a result of the accident.
On 12 July 2001 the Head of the Department of Supervision of the Ministry of Internal Affairs informed the applicant that, having regard to K.’s injuries sustained on 1 May 2000, the accident had been qualified as a car accident and as such fell within the scope of Article 177 § 1 of the Criminal Code. Consequently, criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant.
On 18 January 2002 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Prudnik District Court.
On 13 February 2002 the Prudnik District Court referred the bill of indictment back to the Kędzierzyn Koźle District Prosecutor in order to complete the preparatory proceedings (postępowanie przygotowawcze).
On 16 May 2002 the Kędzierzyn Koźle District Prosecutor decided to seek an expert’s opinion in order to establish the cause of the accident.
On 24 June 2002 the completed bill of indictment was lodged with the Prudnik District Court.
On 13 September 2002 the Opole Regional Court, on the Prudnik District Court’s motion, transferred the case to the Opole District Court.
In the course of 2002 the applicant unsuccessfully attempted on a number of occasions to have criminal proceedings instituted against the police officers who had intervened following the car accident on 1 May 2000.
Between 19 September 2002 and 14 January 2004 no hearing was scheduled.
On 14 January 2004 the Opole District Court decided to change the mode of proceedings by using the simplified procedure and on the same day adopted a summary judgment (wyrok nakazowy) finding the applicant guilty of causing a car accident. The court sentenced the applicant to a fine.
On 3 February 2004 the applicant lodged an objection to the judgment alleging that it contained errors regarding the establishment of the facts.
On 11 February 2004 the Prosecutor lodged an objection to the judgment alleging that by changing the mode of proceedings the Opole District Court had violated the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
As a result of the objections the judgment lost its binding force.
On 9 March 2004 the court held a hearing and decided to deal with the case in ordinary proceedings. Since the applicant’s defence counsel had other commitments, the court adjourned the hearing.
On 23 April 2004 the court heard the applicant.
On 8 June 2004 the court adjourned the hearing scheduled for that day as some of the witnesses and the applicant had failed to appear.
On 15 July 2004 and 30 November 2004 the court held hearings during which the remainder of the witnesses were heard.
On 30 November 2004 the Opole District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to a fine.
The applicant appealed against the District Court judgment.
On 30 March 2005 the Opole Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as ill-founded. The applicant was represented throughout the proceedings by a lawyer.
2. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings.
On an unspecified date the applicant lodged with the Opole Regional Court a complaint 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”).
On 24 November 2004 the Opole Regional Court gave a decision in which it acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings. It found that the delay in the proceedings that had occurred between 19 September 2002 and 14 January 2004 was justified neither by the complexity nor the nature of the case. According to the court the judge in charge of the case was alone responsible for the delay. By dealing with the case in summary proceedings he had violated the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. This shortcoming had to be remedied, which consequently affected the length of the proceedings. The court further stated that since 14 January 2004 hearings had been held at regular intervals and no other shortcomings were discernible. The Opole Regional Court awarded the applicant 500 PLN (approximately 125 EUR) by way of just satisfaction.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law 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 applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceeding and about not being granted adequate compensation.
2. He further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unfairness of the proceedings. He claimed that he had been wrongly convicted and that the domestic courts had erroneously assessed the facts and evidence in the case.
THE LAW
On 10 March 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“ I, Jakub Wołąsiewicz, Agent of the Government before the ECHR, declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay 6,500 Polish zlotys to Mr Jerzy Leszczuk 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. 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 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. ”
On 4 February 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“ I, Jerzy Leszczuk, the applicant, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of 6,500 PLN 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. 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 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. ”
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Lawrence EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy