BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF STEFAN KOZŁOWSKI v. POLAND
(Application
no. 30072/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 April 2008
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Stefan Kozłowski v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Stanislav Pavlovschi,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján
Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä, judges,
and
Lawrence Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 27 March 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 30072/04) against the
Republic of Poland lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by a Polish national, Mr Stefan
Kozłowski (“the applicant”), on 11 July 2004.
- The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
- On
14 December 2006 the
President of the Fourth Section, to which the case had been
allocated, decided to give notice of the application to the
Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it was
decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at
the same time.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Szczecin.
A. First set of criminal proceedings against the
applicant
- On
an unspecified date in 1993 two sets of criminal proceedings against
the applicant were instituted before the Szczecin District Court (Sąd
Rejonowy). The applicant was charged with armed robbery. On
10 May 1994 the respective proceedings were joined.
- On
26 October 1999 the Szczecin District Court gave judgment and
convicted the applicant.
- On
an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal.
- On
16 February 2000 the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy)
remitted the case.
- According
to the applicant's submissions, the court refused to send him copies
of the relevant documents concerning the impugned proceedings.
Because of this, he could not submit detailed information about the
dates of hearings and the reasons for their adjournment.
- On
28 February 2005 the Szczecin District Court again gave judgment and
sentenced the applicant to three years and six months' imprisonment.
- According
to the Government's submissions, the first-instance judgment was
upheld by the Regional Court on appeal and the proceedings terminated
in July 2005.
B. Second set of criminal proceedings against the
applicant
- On
an unspecified date the applicant was charged with acting as part of
an organised criminal group. The applicant has failed to produce any
documents concerning this set of proceedings; he only stated that he
had been convicted by a judgment of the Kraków Court of Appeal
on 4 April 1996.
C. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
- On
an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the
Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) 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”). He sought a ruling declaring that the length of the
proceedings in his case had been excessive and requesting an award of
just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN -
approx. 2,500 euros (EUR)).
- On
13 January 2005 the Szczecin Regional Court gave a decision in which
it acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings, finding that
there had been some periods of unjustified inactivity (lasting from
several months to some three years) on the part of the Szczecin
District Court. It awarded the applicant PLN 5,000 (approx. EUR
1,222) in just satisfaction. Referring to the amount of just
satisfaction, the court relied on the fact that the applicant had
contributed to the length of the proceedings because he “had
lodged numerous letters with the court” and “because of
his state of health a number of hearings had to be adjourned”.
II. 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; 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.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNREASONABLE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
- The
Court notes that the proceedings commenced on an unspecified date in
1993. However, the period to be taken into consideration can only
begin on 1 May 1993, when the recognition by Poland of the right of
individual petition took effect. The period in question ended on 22
July 2004. It thus lasted 11 years, 2 months and 24 days for two
levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- As
to the Government's argument that the applicant cannot be considered
a “victim”, within the meaning of Article 34 of the
Convention, of a deprivation of his right to a hearing within a
reasonable time, this issue falls to be determined in the light of
the principles recently established in the Court's case-law (see
Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01,
§§ 69 107, ECHR 2006 ..., and Scordino v.
Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178 213,
ECHR 2006 - ...).
- The
Szczecin Regional Court analysed the course of the impugned
proceedings in the light of the criteria which the Court itself
applies. It concluded that the District Court had infringed the
applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay and awarded
the applicant the equivalent of EUR 1,220 in respect of the
length of the proceedings. The just satisfaction awarded by the
Regional Court amounts to approximately 12.5% of what the Court would
be likely to have awarded the applicant at that time in accordance
with its practice, taking into account the particular circumstances
of the proceedings. Therefore the Court finds that the redress
afforded the applicant at domestic level, considered on the basis of
the facts of which he complains in the Convention proceedings, was
insufficient. In these circumstances, the argument that the applicant
has lost his status as a “victim” cannot be upheld.
- The
Government further submitted that the applicant had not exhausted all
remedies available under Polish law. They maintained that he had not
lodged a claim with the civil courts for compensation for damage
suffered due to the excessive length of the proceedings. Such a claim
was provided for by Article 417 of the Civil Code.
- The
applicant maintained that he had exhausted all remedies in respect of
his complaint under Article 6 § 1.
- The
Court notes that the applicant lodged a complaint with the Szczecin
Regional Court about the length of the proceedings under section 5 of
the 2004 Act.
- The
Court has already examined remedies provided under sections 5 and
18 of the 2004 Act for the purposes of Article 35 § 1
of the Convention and found them effective in respect of complaints
about the excessive length of judicial proceedings in Poland (see
Charzyński v. Poland (dec.) no. 15212/03, §§
36-43, and Michalak v. Poland (dec.) no. 24549/03,
§§ 37 44).
- Furthermore,
the Court has already held that having exhausted the available remedy
provided by the 2004 Act, the applicant was not required to embark on
another attempt to obtain redress by bringing a civil action for
compensation (see Cichla v. Poland
no. 18036/03, § 26, 10 October 2006, and
Jagiełło v. Poland, no. 59738/00, § 24,
23 January 2007).
- Accordingly,
the Court concludes that, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1
of the Convention, the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies. It
follows that the Government's plea of inadmissibility on the ground
of non exhaustion of domestic remedies must be dismissed.
- The
Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It also
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII)
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see Frydlender, cited above).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court finds no
argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in
the present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject the
Court concurs with the Regional Court that in the instant case the
length of the criminal proceedings complained of was excessive and
failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
- In
view of the above considerations, the Court concludes that there has
been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
- Regarding the applicant's allegation that his
complaint about a breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable
time was unjustly dismissed, the Court considered it appropriate to
raise of its own motion the issue of Poland's compliance with the
requirements of Article 13 of the Convention, on account of
indications that the applicant had no effective domestic remedy in
respect of the unreasonable length of the civil proceedings.
This
provision provides as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth
in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has
been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
- The Government refrained from making any comments on
this complaint.
- The
Court observes firstly that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy
before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement
under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see
Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR
2000-XI).
- The
Court has frequently held that the remedy required by Article 13 must
be “effective” in practice as well as in law (see, for
example, İlhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93,
§ 97, ECHR 2000-VII). The term “effective” is also
considered to mean that the remedy must be adequate and accessible
(see Paulino Tomás v. Portugal (dec.),
no. 58698/00, ECHR 2003-XIII). Remedies available to a litigant
at domestic level for raising a complaint about the length of
proceedings are “effective” within the meaning of Article
13 of the Convention if they prevent the alleged violation or its
continuation, or provide adequate redress for any violation that has
already occurred (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no.
57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII; Scordino (no. 1),
cited above, §§ 186-188; and Surmeli v. Germany
[GC], no. 75529/01, § 99, 8 June 2006). Lastly, the Court
reiterates that the effectiveness of a remedy within the meaning of
Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome
for the applicant (see Surmeli, cited above, § 98) and
the mere fact that an applicant's claim fails is not in itself
sufficient to render the remedy ineffective (see Amann v.
Switzerland, [GC], no. 27798/95, §§ 88-89, ECHR
2002-II).
- The
Court reiterates that the word “remedy” within the
meaning of Article 13 does not mean a remedy which is bound to
succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority
competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see, e.g.,
Šidlová v. Slovakia, no. 50224/99,
§ 77, 26 September 2006).
- The Court recalls that it has already examined the
remedies under the 2004 Act for the purposes of Article 35 § 1
of the Convention and found them effective in respect of complaints
about the excessive length of judicial proceedings in Poland (see
Charzyński, cited above, §§ 36-42; Michalak
v. Poland (dec.), no. 24549/03, §§ 37-43).
- The
Court observes the amount awarded to the applicant was based on the
exercise by the domestic court of its discretion
as to what might constitute appropriate
pecuniary redress in the circumstances of the applicant's own case.
The domestic court acknowledged the excessive length of the
proceedings, awarded the applicant just satisfaction and
gave reasons for the amount of compensation (see paragraph 14 above).
The mere fact that the amount of compensation given
was low does not of itself render the remedy ineffective (see,
mutatis mutandis, Zarb v. Malta, no. 16631/04,
§§ 49-52, 4 July 2006). In the light of the
foregoing, the Court considers that the above-mentioned situation
cannot be regarded as a breach of the applicant's right to an
effective remedy.
The
Court would add, however, that different considerations might apply
in a case where an applicant alleges that the domestic
remedy itself fails to reflect the standards embodied in the
relevant case-law of the Court, for example if the remedy
confines the period to be assessed to the judicial phase of the
proceedings to the exclusion of, say, the pre-trial investigation
stage of criminal proceedings. A separate issue might also arise
under Article 13 where the domestic courts consistently fail to apply
Convention standards by erring in their interpretation of the remedy,
for example by placing temporal restrictions on its application (see,
in this connection, Tur
v. Poland,
§§ 62 68, 23 October 2007)
or, where the proceedings at issue have lasted a long time, by not
giving reasons for a refusal to award damages or for making a very
modest award (see in the latter connection, Scordino,
cited above, § 204).
- 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.
III. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Lastly, the applicant, relying on Article 6 § 1
of the Convention, complained, in essence, of the alleged unfairness
of some other set of criminal proceedings against him which,
according to his submissions, terminated with the Kraków Court
of Appeal's judgment of 4 April 1996.
- The
Court, having examined this complaint, and regardless of other
possible grounds of inadmissibility, finds nothing in the case file
which might disclose any appearance of a violation of this Convention
provision.
- It
follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded
and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of
the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed PLN 27,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government considered the claim excessive.
- Making
its assessment on an equitable basis and having regard to the sum
awarded by the domestic authorities, the Court considers that it
should award the full sum claimed in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not make any claim for costs and expenses involved in
the proceedings.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 7,500
(seven thousand five hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at
the rate applicable at the date of payment, plus any tax that may be
chargeable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 April 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
