EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
SECOND CHAMBER
Application No. 25086/94
Bronislawa Proszak
against
Poland
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 4 September 1996)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION
(paras. 1-16). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
A. The application
(paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
B. The proceedings
(paras. 5-11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
C. The present Report
(paras. 12-16). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
(paras. 17-38) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
(paras. 39-52) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
A. Complaint declared admissible
(para. 39). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
B. Point at issue
(para. 40). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
C. As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention
(paras. 41-51). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
CONCLUSION
(para. 52). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
APPENDIX I: PARTIAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO
THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . .8
APPENDIX II: FINAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO
the ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . 12
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the
European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the
Commission.
A. The application
2. The applicant is a Polish citizen, born in 1926 and resident in
Stalowa Wola.
3. The application is directed against Poland. The respondent
Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. Krzysztof Drzewicki,
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
4. The case relates to the length of civil proceedings instituted
by the applicant. The applicant invokes Article 6 para. 1 of the
Convention.
B. The proceedings
5. The application was introduced on 28 April 1994 and registered
on 6 September 1994.
6. On 17 January 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the
complaint concerning the length of the civil proceedings to the Polish
Government who were invited to submit their observations on its
admissibility and merits before 28 March 1995. The Commission declared
the remainder of the application inadmissible.
7. At the Government's request the time-limit for the submission of
the observations was subsequently extended twice, until 20 April and
30 May 1995, respectively.
8. The Government did not request a further extension of the time-
limit and did not submit any observations. By letter of
4 September 1995 the Government were informed that the application was
being considered for inclusion in the list of cases for examination by
the Commission at its session beginning on 16 October 1995.
9. On 18 October 1995 the Commission declared admissible the
applicant's complaint under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
10. The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent
to the parties on 27 October 1995 and they were invited to submit such
further information or observations on the merits as they wished. The
Government submitted observations on 6 November 1995.
11. After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in
accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed
itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a
friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the
Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement
can be effected.
C. The present Report
12. The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission (Second
Chamber) in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after
deliberations and votes, the following members being present:
Mrs. G.H. THUNE, President
MM. J.-C. GEUS
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
E. BIELIUNAS
13. The text of this Report was adopted on 4 September 1996 by the
Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the
Convention.
14. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the
Convention, is:
(i) to establish the facts, and
(ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose
a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under
the Convention.
15. The Commission's decisions on the admissibility of the
application are annexed hereto.
16. The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the
documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the
Commission.
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
17. On 20 December 1988 the applicant was assaulted and beaten by her
neighbour R.T. On 29 November 1989 the Stalowa Wola District Court
(S*d Rejonowy) convicted the latter of assault and causing bodily harm
and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment. On 12 March 1990 the
Tarnobrzeg Regional Court (S*d Wojewódzki) decided to discontinue the
proceedings by virtue of the Amnesty Act.
18. On 25 October 1990 the applicant filed a civil action with the
Stalowa Wola District Court against R.T. claiming compensation of five
million zloty for damage resulting from the assault. At an unspecified
later date she increased her claim.
19. On 14 April 1992 a psychiatrist B.S. was heard as an expert.
20. On 23 February 1993 the applicant underwent a psychiatric
examination by two experts W.S. and A.S. ordered by the Stalowa Wola
District Court for the purposes of the civil proceedings for
compensation.
21. On 8 June 1993 the Court held a hearing and heard psychiatrist
W.S. as an expert, whose patient the applicant had been during the
preceding ten years. He maintained his opinion of 23 February 1993 in
its entirety and expressed disagreement with the conclusions of the
opinion of B.S.
22. On 18 June 1993 the applicant refused to undergo a further
psychiatric examination. She contended that there were sufficient
documents in the case-file relating to her mental health as she had
already been examined by psychiatrists at least twice in the course of
the proceedings. She pointed out that she did not understand how a
further psychiatric examination of the victim of an assault could be
useful for the determination of the civil liability of the defender.
23. On 7 September 1993 the applicant informed the Court that she had
been unable to attend a hearing on 2 September 1993 for health reasons
and submitted a medical certificate to this effect. She also
complained about the length of the proceedings.
24. On 6 October 1993 a date for the applicant's further psychiatric
examination in the Stalowa Wola hospital was fixed.
25. Subsequently the applicant complained to the President of the
Stalowa Wola District Court about the delay in the proceedings. On
19 October 1993 the President informed her that this was in part due
to her refusal to undergo a further medical examination. He found no
indications of lack of diligence on the part of the Court.
26. On 26 October 1993 the applicant complained to the Minister of
Justice about the length of the proceedings. She submitted that the
President of the Court had failed to reply to three of her complaints.
She challenged the judge claiming that she had not diligently dealt
with the case and was biased against the applicant. On 2 November 1993
the Ministry transmitted this letter to the President of the Tarnobrzeg
Regional Court.
27. On 16 November 1993 the applicant requested to be examined by a
psychiatrist specialised in the syndrome of former prisoners of the
German concentration camps as she had been imprisoned in Ravensbrück
during the Second World War.
28. Subsequently the applicant formally challenged the judge
rapporteur in her case on the ground that the proceedings had exceeded
a reasonable time.
29. On 10 March 1994 the District Court in Stalowa Wola dismissed the
applicant's challenge of the judge as lacking a basis in law.
30. The applicant apparently appealed against this decision, but her
appeal was rejected as not complying with the formal requirements.
31. On 9 January 1996 the applicant informed the Stalowa Wola
District Court that she was unable to undergo the psychiatric
examination scheduled for 23 January 1996 because of bad health. She
complained about the length of the proceedings. She also submitted
that this examination was redundant in view of the fact that she had
already been examined.
32. On 15 January 1996 the Court informed the applicant that her
case-file had been sent to the Lublin Medical Academy for a further
expert opinion to be prepared.
33. On 18 January 1996 the applicant requested the Court to proceed
further with the case in her absence as she had already submitted to
the court all information which she considered relevant to the outcome
of the case.
34. The date of a further medical examination was set for
23 January 1996.
35. On 18 March 1996 the applicant informed the court that she was
unable to attend the hearing scheduled for 20 March, due to bad health.
She submitted a medical certificate.
36. In a letter of 20 March 1996 the court asked the applicant
whether in view of her illness she would not prefer to be heard at her
domicile instead of being summoned to the court.
37. On 2 April 1996 the applicant informed the court of her bad
health.
38. On 16 May 1996 the Stalowa Wola District Court pronounced a first
instance judgment, partly allowing the applicant's claim. The
defendant filed an appeal against the judgment.
III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
A. Complaint declared admissible
39. The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint
that her case was not determined within a reasonable time.
B. Point at issue
40. The only point at issue is whether the length of the proceedings
complained of exceeded the "reasonable time" requirement set out in
Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.
C. As regards Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention
41. The relevant part of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention provides as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...
everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time
by (a) ... tribunal ..."
42. The applicant submits that the courts are slow in dealing with
her case. She submits that the length of the proceedings has exceeded
a reasonable time as no complex issues are involved. She contends that
there were several periods of inactivity in the proceedings; that the
court is unable to determine the steps to be taken and to take any
decision. The applicant contends that there are sufficient documents
in the case-file relating to her mental health for the court to rule
in the case. She maintains that there was no progress in the
proceedings at least since September 1993.
43. The Government submit that the case was complex in that the
decision necessitated expert opinions as to the causal link between the
assault and the alleged deterioration of health. Therefore the court
had to order several opinions. As these opinions were contradictory,
the court found it necessary to order a further opinion. The efforts
to find a relevant specialist were to no avail. Finally, after
numerous letters and requests to various institutions, an expert
opinion of the Lublin Medical Academy was ordered. Regard must be had
to the special character and authority of the opinion of the scientific
institutions, to which the courts attach particular weight when taking
decisions. The applicant contributed to the delay as in June 1993 she
refused to undergo a medical examination. Later in November 1993 she
herself requested that she be examined by a specialist in the syndrome
of former prisoners of the German concentration camps as she had been
imprisoned in Ravensbrück during the Second World War. The applicant
further unsuccessfully challenged the judge rapporteur which
contributed to the prolongation of the proceedings. The Government
conclude that in the period after 1 May 1993 the case was pursued by
the authorities with due diligence.
44. The Commission observes that the proceedings complained of began
on 25 October 1990 when the applicant lodged her action with the
Stalowa Wola District Court. The proceedings are still pending before
the first instance court.
45. The Commission recalls that the period to be considered began on
1 May 1993, the date on which the recognition by Poland of the right
of individual petition took effect. The Commission further recalls
that in cases where it can, by reason of its competence ratione
temporis, only examine part of the proceedings, it can take into
account, in order to assess the length, the stage reached in the
proceedings at the beginning of the period under consideration (see
No. 7984/77, Dec. 11.7.79, D.R. 16 p. 92). The proceedings have lasted
to date five years and ten months. The period which falls after the
date of recognition of the right of individual petition is three years
and four months.
46. The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of the length of
proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular
circumstances of the case and on the basis of the following criteria:
the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties and the conduct
of the authorities dealing with the case (see Eur. Court H.R., Vernillo
v. France judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, p. 12,
para. 30).
47. The Commission considers that the present proceedings do not seem
to be particularly complex. The facts of the criminal offence which
gave rise to the compensation claim had been established in the
judgment of the criminal court in 1989. Thus the crucial circumstances
which remain to be established are whether the applicant suffered any
damage to her health and whether there is a causal link between the
offence and the damage suffered. The Court has already ordered three
psychiatric expert opinions in this respect, which could have provided
a sufficient basis for a decision. The fact that the experts'
conclusions were discrepant does not, in the Commission's view, justify
the delay in the proceedings. It is for the court to draw conclusions
from the expert opinions as to their significance for the outcome of
the case, even if the experts are not in agreement.
48. As regards the applicant's conduct, it is true that the applicant
increased her claim in the course of the proceedings, but this should
not be held against her, as there was considerable inflation during the
time the proceedings remained pending. The applicant also has
contributed to the length of the proceedings by challenging a judge.
She further demanded that a third expert opinion be prepared. However,
it is for the court to determine whether a particular expert opinion
is of significance for the outcome of the case. The Stalowa Wola
District Court considered that this opinion was relevant for the case
and decided to comply with the applicant's request. On the whole, the
Commission finds that the applicant's conduct cannot explain the total
length of the proceedings.
49. As regards the conduct of the authorities, the Commission
observes that on the whole three expert opinions as to the applicant's
mental health were ordered and two experts were heard by the court.
The Commission notes that the Government did not furnish a convincing
explanation as to the reasons for the delay in finding an expert who
would prepare the third opinion. Neither was it explained why these
efforts had initially failed. The failure to appoint an expert
resulted in a further delay in the proceedings. The Commission notes
in this respect that the applicant requested that a third expert
opinion be taken in November 1993 and in January 1996 this opinion was
still not submitted to the court. The Commission recalls that a court
shall see to it that an expert appointed by the court performs his task
expeditiously (Eur. Court H.R., Capuano v. Italy judgment of
25 June 1985, Series A no. 119, p. 13, para. 30).
50. In view of these circumstances the Commission considers that in
the period since 1 May 1993 it cannot be said that the authorities were
diligent in the conduct of the case. They are therefore mainly
responsible for the length of the proceedings.
51. In the light of the criteria established by the case-law and
having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Commission
considers that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed
to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.
CONCLUSION
52. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that in the present case
there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention.
M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE
Secretary President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy