FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 45657/08
by Urszula SURMAN-JANUSZEWSKA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 July 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Giovanni Bonello, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ján Šikuta, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 September 2008,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 15 April 2010 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 Urszula Surman-Januszewska, is a Polish national who was born in 1930 and lives in Warsaw. 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. Civil proceedings instituted by the applicant
In 1962 the applicant was a victim of a train accident and was subsequently (in 1963) given invalidity status and granted a disability pension by a railway company.
On 20 December 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings with the Warsaw District Court, requesting that her disability pension be increased.
By a decision of 31 March 2000 the Warsaw District Court suspended the proceedings in her case.
On 29 November 2000 the applicant filed a request for the proceedings, which had been pending since 1996, to be reopened.
On 25 April 2001 the applicant repeated her request.
On 26 June 2001 the first hearing took place in the case.
On 11 August 2005 the Warsaw District Court acceded to the applicant's claim and increased the amount of her pension as of 20 December 1996 (with retroactive effect). The applicant appealed, contesting the amounts awarded by the court.
On 27 April 2006 the Warsaw Regional Court partly quashed the judgment (concerning the period before and after 20 December 1996 until 31 December 1997) and remitted the case in this respect.
On 19 April 2007, after re-examining the case, the Warsaw District Court decided on the amount of pension to be granted for the period in question.
The applicant appealed.
On 6 March 2008 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed her appeal. As can be seen from the case file, this final decision was served on the applicant on 30 June 2008.
2. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
On 4 April 2006 the applicant filed a complaint with the Warsaw Court of Appeal under 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”). She alleged that the civil proceedings pending before the Warsaw Regional Court had exceeded a “reasonable” time and requested 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in compensation.
On 19 April 2006 the Warsaw Regional Court decided that the proceedings in the applicant's case had indeed been excessively lengthy and awarded her PLN 2,000.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, 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 and the judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings.
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 15 April 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by 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 violation of the applicant's right to have her case heard within reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
In these circumstances, and having regard to the particular facts of the case, the Government declare that they offer to pay to the applicant the amount of PLN 11,000, which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court's case-law. The sum refereed 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 periods plus three percentage points.
The Government would respectfully suggest that the above 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 21 May 2010 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government's declaration was unacceptably low.
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”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application 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 the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
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 the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government's declaration under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides unanimously to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Lawrence EarlyGiovanni Bonello
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy