FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 28436/04
by Eugeniusz STUŁA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 July 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 unsuccessful friendly settlement negotiations,
Having regard to the Government’s request to strike the case out of its list of cases and the text of a unilateral declaration made with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application,
Having regard to the applicant’s comments on the Government’s proposal for a unilateral declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Eugeniusz Stuła, is a Polish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Strzelce Opolskie. The respondent 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.The criminal proceedings
On 2 July 1999 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand on several charges of offences committed in the context of organised crime within an organised armed group.
On 26 June 2000 a bill of indictment was submitted to the Częstochowa Regional Court against the applicant and 16 other persons. 63 witnesses were to be heard.
As some of the accused were detained on remand in connection with other proceedings conducted by the Regional Court in Katowice, on 18 April 2002 the Częstochowa Regional Court requested the Supreme Court to transfer the case to the Katowice Regional Court.
On 15 May 2002 the Supreme Court decided that the case should be examined by the Katowice Regional Court and the case files were transferred to the latter court on 6 June 2002.
The first hearing was scheduled for 20 February 2003. Subsequently, hearings were held once or twice a month.
On 25 October 2004 the court concluded the proceedings and heard the parties’ final speeches.
On 15 May 2004 the court delivered a judgment and imposed concurrent sentences totalling 9 years’ imprisonment.
On 19 January 2006 the Katowice Court of Appeal upheld the judgment.
On 22 May 2006 the Court of Appeal informed the applicant that his legal aid lawyer had not found any grounds for lodging a cassation appeal in the case and that he had a possibility to lodge a cassation appeal drafted by a privately-hired lawyer within thirty days. Apparently, the applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal and the judgment of the Court of Appeal became final on 22 June 2006.The proceedings under the 2004 Act
On 24 February 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings.
On 11 May 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint on the ground that there had been no undue delay in the proceedings. According to the court the proceedings in the case began on 26 June 2000 (when the bill of indictment was submitted to the court) and ended on 25 October 2004 (when the proceedings were concluded, though before the judgment was delivered) and lasted four years and four months.
The Court first noted that during the period between 26 June 2000 and 18 April 2002, when the case had been examined by the Czestochowa Regional Court, there had indeed been unjustified delays resulting from the inactivity of the court. No decision whatsoever had been taken in the first six months, and later the court had been unable to overcome logistical obstacles, namely problems with securing the attendance of some of the co-accused. The court noted that the first-instance court could have considered the possibility of examining the applicant’s case separately.
However, the Court of Appeal found that the pace of the proceedings had completely changed once the case had been transferred to the Katowice Regional Court. Although on the whole the proceedings could have been considered lengthy, the length had resulted from objective reasons which could not be attributable to the Regional Court. Further, the court pointed to the complexity of the case.
Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal considered that notwithstanding the period of undue delay which had occurred before the Czestochowa Regional Court, it had ended on 18 April 2002, thus before the entry into force of the 2004 Act on 17 September 2004. Consequently, this particular period could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of a declaration that the proceedings had been unreasonably lengthy.
The court concluded that after that date there had been no undue delays in the proceedings which could be considered as a continuation of delays which had occurred before that date.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings in his case.
2. The applicant also complained about alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings, in particular about the erroneous assessment of facts and evidence.
THE LAW
1. As to the complaint about the length of the proceedings
On 1 June 2007 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the above-mentioned complaint. It further requested the Court to strike out this part of 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. At the same time, the Government admit that in the particular circumstances of the applicant’s case, the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings has not been redressed at the domestic level as required by Article 13 of the Convention.
Consequently, the Government are prepared to accept the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction to a maximum of PLN 8,000, which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case law and bearing in mind that the present case concerns criminal proceedings, the applicant having been charged with committing several crimes in the ambit of an organised criminal group.
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 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 Government would respectfully suggest that the above declaration 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.”
The applicant considered the terms of the declaration unsatisfactory.
The Court observes at the outset that the parties were unable to agree on the terms of a friendly settlement of the case. It recalls that, according to Article 38 § 2 of the Convention, friendly-settlement negotiations are confidential and that Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court further stipulates that no written or oral communication and no offer or concession made in the framework of the attempt to secure a friendly settlement may be referred to or relied on in contentious proceedings. However, the declaration was made by the Government outside the framework of the friendly-settlement negotiations.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike 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”.
Article 37 § 1 in fine includes the proviso that:
“However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
The Court also recalls that under certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention 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); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006) and Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005‑IX).
As to the circumstances of the instant case, the Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004; Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000‑XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005‑... (extracts); Charzyński v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005‑...; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006‑...; Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007). Where the Court has found a breach of these Articles it has awarded just satisfaction, the amount of which depended on the particular features of the case.
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s unilateral declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed (which can be considered reasonable in comparison with the Court’s awards 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)) (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar as cited above; and also Haran v. Turkey, no. 25754/94, judgment of 26 March 2002).
The Court further notes that this decision constitutes a final resolution of this part of this application only insofar 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.
In light of all the above considerations, 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) and it should therefore be struck out of the list.
2. As to the remaining complaint
As regards the applicant’s complaint of unfairness, the Court reiterates that it is not a court of appeal from domestic courts and cannot intervene to investigate allegations that the domestic courts reached the wrong decision (see the Schenk v. Switzerland judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, § 45). Insofar as the complaint falls within the Court’s jurisdiction the Court does not find any indication of procedural impropriety or any failure to comply with Article 6 of the Convention. It follows that the remaining complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
3. As to the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention
Having regard to the above considerations and to its conclusions set out below, the Court decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration 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 accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention in so far as it concerns the complaint about the length of the proceedings;
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
T.L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy