FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 45451/06
by Mirosław TRZNADEL
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 December 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Josep Casadevall,
Giovanni Bonello,
Kristaq Traja,
Stanislav Pavlovschi,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 November 2005,
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 declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 15 October 2007 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, Mr Mirosław Trznadel, is a Polish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Wroclaw. He was represented before the Court by Mr J. Runowski, a lawyer practising in Żary. 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.
On 15 April 1999 the applicant was detained on remand on suspicion of attempted murder. The applicant was charged with two attempted murders and possession of an unlicensed weapon.
On 2 February 2001 the Legnica Regional Court convicted the applicant of attempted robbery, endangering third persons’ lives and possession of a weapon. It sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment. Both the prosecutor and the applicant lodged appeals.
On 29 April 2002 the Wrocław Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case.
On 21 January 2004 the Legnica Regional Court gave a judgment. It convicted the applicant of one count of attempted murder, and acquitted him of the second count of attempted murder as well as of possession of a weapon. Both the prosecutor and the applicant appealed.
On 5 May 2004 the Wrocław Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case.
On 23 June 2005 the Legnica Regional Court convicted the applicant of two attempted murders and possession of a weapon and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. On 9 August 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal which he had drafted himself. On 16 August 2005 the applicant appealed through his lawyer.
On 17 February 2006 the Wrocław Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 23 June 2005.
On 1 August 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Wrocław 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”).
On 31 August 2005 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint. The court emphasised the complexity of the case and found that the proceedings had been conducted efficiently.
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. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
By letter dated 15 October 2007 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 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 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 Convention.
In these circumstances, and having regard to the particular facts of the case, the Government declare that they offer to pay the applicant PLN 8,000.
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 from its list of case, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of Convention.
In a letter of 12 November 2007 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.
The Court further notes that this decision constitutes a final resolution 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.
B. Article 29 § 3 of the Convention
In view of the above conclusions, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court by a majority
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 to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Lawrence EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy