Published on 16 September 2024
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 29826/20
Paulina SOKÓŁ
against Poland
lodged on 1 July 2020
communicated on 30 August 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the length and the alleged ineffectiveness of the criminal proceedings following a swimming accident which left the applicant severely disabled.
As a result of the accident, which took place at a municipal swimming pool on 9 April 2010, the applicant suffered cerebral hypoxia leading to spastic quadriplegia and muscle atrophy. She is severely disabled and incapable of independent living.
On 15 April 2010 the prosecution service opened an investigation into the accident. In June 2012 the prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment against two lifeguards, the manager of the pool and the doctor who had taken over the resuscitation of the applicant at the pool. The applicant joined the proceedings as the auxiliary prosecutor (oskarżyciel posiłkowy). The proceedings ended on 12 April 2022 with all defendants being acquitted.
On 21 September 2018 the Łomża Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) partly allowed the applicant’s length of proceedings complaint and awarded her 4,000 Polish złotys (PLN) (approximately 930 euros (EUR)).
Separately, in 2013 the applicant lodged a civil action against the municipal entity managing the pool and the regional ambulance service. On 28 May 2013 the Łomża Regional Court granted an interim injunction ordering each of the defendants to pay the applicant monthly maintenance of PLN 1,450 (approximately EUR 340) and stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal case. These proceedings were resumed on 17 December 2020. It appears that they are still pending at first instance.
Invoking Articles 2, 8 and 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the authorities failed to carry out effective, diligent and prompt criminal proceedings regarding her accident, which had a negative impact both on the civil proceedings and on her private and family life.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Nicolae Virgiliu Tanase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, §§ 137-45 and 157‑71, 25 June 2019), were the criminal proceedings conducted by the domestic authorities in respect of the applicant’s accident in breach of Article 2 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) did the domestic authorities exercise requisite diligence in the process of gathering evidence (see Kornicka-Ziobro v. Poland, no. 23037/16, § 69, 20 October 2022)? Reference is made, in particular, to the reservations in this regard expressed by the domestic courts (see e.g.: judgment of 30 November 2018, case no. II K 319/17, page 13).
(b) does the length of the criminal proceedings, in and of itself, and as impacting the civil proceedings, raise an issue under the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention?