FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 10902/07
by Piotr RYCKIE
against Poland (no. 2)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25 November 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 February 2007,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Piotr Ryckie, is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Gdansk. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
The applicant was remanded in custody on 24 December 1996 on suspicion of participation in a brawl which resulted in the death of a man. On 18 June 1997 a bill of indictment was issued against the applicant and his co-defendant. By a decision of 19 October 1999 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave judgment and convicted the applicant and his co-defendant and sentenced them to five years and six months’ imprisonment.
The applicant and the co-defendant appealed.
On 19 May 2000 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sad Okręgowy) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.
By a decision of 10 October 2000 the Gdansk District Court found that the case fell outside its jurisdiction and remitted the case to the Gdańsk Regional Court. The latter found itself without jurisdiction to consider the case and on 14 November 2000 decided to return it to the District Court. The decision became final and the case file was transferred to the court with jurisdiction on 28 December 2000. By a decision of 16 January 2001 a hearing was rescheduled for 5 March 2001.
On 15 November 2002 the court scheduled the next hearing for 12 February 2003. Due to the absence of the lay judge the hearing was cancelled and scheduled for 8 May 2003.
By a decision of 3 November 2003 the hearing planned for 14 January 2004 was cancelled; no reasons were given. Only on 16 January 2004 was the next hearing scheduled, for 8 March 2004.
The hearing scheduled for 15 November 2004 was adjourned due to the absence of one of the witnesses.
The next hearing, scheduled for 20 January 2005, was adjourned; the applicant’s co-accused had failed to appear.
The next hearing, scheduled for 7 March 2005, was cancelled, as the witness was again absent. Therefore, the court imposed a fine on him.
The court held hearings on 18 April and 12 May 2005.
The following hearing, scheduled for 29 June 2006, was adjourned since the applicant could not be escorted to court due to the lack of a convoy.
The court held a hearing on 26 September 2005. The next hearing, scheduled for 16 November 2005, was adjourned due to the unjustified absence of the applicant’s co-accused.
Subsequent hearings, scheduled for 16 January 2006 and 22 March 2006, were adjourned since the case file concerning another set of criminal proceedings was not available. It had been sent to the Appeal Court in connection with the applicant’s claim concerning the excessive length of the proceedings.
The hearing scheduled for 18 May 2006 was cancelled, since the applicant could not be escorted to court due to the lack of a convoy.
On 29 June 2006 the Gdańsk District Court (Sad Rejonowy) acquitted the applicant and the co-defendant. The prosecutor appealed.
On 20 March 2007 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sad Okregowy) dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal as unfounded.
2. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s complaints under the 2004 Act
(i) The first complaint
On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Gdańsk Regional Court under sections 4, 8 and 12 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 Gdańsk District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN).
On 10 January 2005 the Gdańsk Regional Court gave a decision and acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings during the periods from 12 February 2003 until 8 March 2003 and from 3 November 2003 until 16 January 2004. The court found that apart from the above-mentioned periods there had been no inactivity or undue delay on the part of the relevant court. The Regional Court refused to grant the applicant any just satisfaction, holding that the applicant had failed to prove that the excessive length of the proceedings had influenced his situation in the course of the proceedings.
(ii) The second complaint
On 19 May 2006 the applicant lodged a second complaint of undue length of proceedings under the 2004 Act and requested just satisfaction of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN). The applicant stressed that he was detained pending trial. On 12 June 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court held that the 2004 Act produced legal effects from the date of its entry into force, and therefore it referred solely to the period following that date.
It found that during the relevant part of the proceedings, there had been no inactivity or undue delay on the part of the domestic court authorities. In that connection, the court held that there had been was no breach of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time in the period after 17 September 2004.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings in his case was excessive.
THE LAW
On 15 October 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Jakub Wołąsiewicz, agent of the Government, declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay 10,000 Polish zlotys to Mr Piotr Ryckie 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 22 September 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Piotr Ryckie, the applicant, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of 10,000 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. 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 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