FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 18053/06
by Elżbieta Dorota SIERZPUTOWSKA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 8 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Giovanni Bonello, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 April 2006,
Having regard to the Court’s decision to examine jointly the admissibility and merits of the case (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 18 March 2008 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, Ms Elżbieta Dorota Sierzputowska, is a Polish national who was born in 1949 and lives in Warszawa. 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. Main proceedings
On 7 June 1996 the applicant lodged with the Warszawa District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a claim for compensation for moral suffering and damage to her health caused by an infection contracted in a public hospital. She acquired hepatitis C and a blood clot-associated inflammation of the veins.
On an unknown date the case was referred to the Warszawa Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).
From 2 April 1997 to 11 May 1998 the court held 4 hearings, two of which were adjourned.
In a letter of 8 December 1998 the applicant’s lawyer requested the court to accelerate the proceedings and to list a hearing.
At the hearing held on 22 March 1999 the court heard evidence from one witness.
On 23 August 1999, 8 March 2000, 31 January and 22 August 2001 the court held hearings, two of which were adjourned.
On 26 October 2001 the applicant’s lawyer complained about the delay in the proceedings and asked for a hearing date to be fixed.
On 18 March, 24 June and 9 October 2002 the court held hearings.
On 23 October 2002 the Warszawa Regional Court gave judgment. The parties appealed.
In a letter of 19 February 2003 the applicant complained to the President of the Regional Court about the delay in the proceedings and the fact that there had been lengthy intervals between the hearings in her case. She asked for the proceedings to be accelerated.
On 3 March 2003 the President of the Regional Court acknowledged the delay and informed her that he had ordered the court to proceed speedily with the appeals. He apologised for the delay.
On 1 December 2003 the applicant requested the President of the Court of Appeal to schedule a hearing. She relied on the deterioration of her health and the need to have a further operation.
On 2 December 2003 the applicant was informed that a hearing was scheduled for 8 January 2004.
On 8 January and 4 March 2004 the Warszawa Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) held hearings.
On 4 March 2004 the Warszawa Court of Appeal gave judgment. It partly quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.
On 15 September 2004 the applicant asked the Warszawa Regional Court to schedule a hearing. She did not receive any answer.
On 25 October 2004 she repeated her request.
On 2 November 2004 she was informed that the hearing had been scheduled for 2 December 2004.
On 2 December 2004, 8 February, 21 March, 1 June, 10 August and 11 August 2005 the court held hearings.
On 25 August 2005 the Warszawa Regional Court gave judgment. The parties appealed.
On 2 March 2006 the applicant complained to the President of the Regional Court about the delay in the proceedings. On 17 March 2006 she was informed that on 2 March 2006 the case file had been transmitted to the Court of Appeal.
On 30 June 2006 the applicant lodged a request for a hearing to be scheduled.
On 10 October 2006 the Warszawa Court of Appeal held a hearing. On 24 October 2006 it gave judgment.
On 10 March 2007 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).
On 25 May 2007 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the cassation appeal as it did not raise any issue of general importance.
2. The applicant’s complaint under the 2004 Act
On 28 July 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warszawa Court of Appeal 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”).
The applicant sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Warszawa Regional Court had been excessive. She asked for the acceleration of the proceedings and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. EUR 2,500).
On 3 October 2005 the Warszawa Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint. The court held that the 2004 Act did not have a retroactive effect and, consequently, examined the applicant’s claim only in respect of the period between the entry into force of the 2004 Act on 17 September 2004 and the date on which the complaint had been lodged by the applicant. The court found that, during that period, there had been no inactivity or undue delay on the part of the relevant court.
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
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings and about their alleged unfairness.
THE LAW
A. Length of proceedings
The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
By letter dated 7 March 2008 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 unilateral declaration — its acknowledgement of the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicant was involved. The Government are prepared to pay the applicant a sum of PLN 18,000 as just satisfaction.
In the Government’s view the aforementioned sum will provide sufficient redress for any moral damage and is more than adequate having regard to the maximum threshold of compensation under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (“the 2004 Act”). As it has been confirmed in the Court’s case-law the remedy provided for in the 2004 Act is capable of providing applicants with appropriate redress for the alleged damage resulting from the length of the proceedings (Krasuski v. Poland, judgment of 14 June 2005, application no. 61444/00), thus satisfying the “effective remedy”-requirement within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
The Government therefore invite the Court to strike the present case out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as ‘any other reason’ justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
...”
In a letter of 7 April 2008 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low. She argued that the sum proposed by the Government was not adequate and could not be considered as sufficient just-satisfaction for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained by her.
By a letter dated 28 May 2008 the Government maintained their proposal and supplemented it with the following formula:
“(...) 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 of 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 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 of an application 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; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).
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)).
The Court further notes that this decision constitutes a final resolution of this complaint only in so far as the proceedings before the Court are concerned. It is without prejudice to the use by the applicant of other remedies before the domestic courts to claim further compensation in respect of the length of the impugned proceedings.
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.
B. Complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the alleged unfairness of the proceedings
The applicant further complained, invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, about the alleged unfairness of the civil proceedings.
However, the Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention.
In the present case the applicant did not allege any particular failure to respect her right to a fair hearing on the part of the relevant courts. Indeed, her complaints are limited to a challenge to the result of the proceedings. Assessing the circumstances of the case as a whole, the Court finds no indication that the impugned proceedings were conducted unfairly.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with 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 length of proceedings 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.
Lawrence EarlyGiovanni Bonello
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy