CASE OF RUTKOWSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND
Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46 - Pilot judgment;Systemic problem;Article 46-2 - Measures of a general character);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney
A. The case of Mr Rutkowski (application no. 72287/10) 13. The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Warszawa. 1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant (case no. III K 1878/05) 14. On 18 September 2002 the applicant, who was a policeman, was arrested on suspicion of participating in an organised criminal group and corruption. On 20 September 2002 he was charged with those offences and remanded in custody. 15. On 5 December 2002 the prosecutor signed a bill of indictment against the applicant and fifteen co-accused. The applicant was indicted on charges of participating in an organised criminal group, abuse of power and corruption. 16. On an unspecified date in December 2002 the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) lodged the bill of indictment with the Warsaw-City District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). 17. On 14 May 2003 the court issued a severance order, deciding that the accused policemen be tried separately; however, no trial date was scheduled. 18. On 30 May 2003 the applicant was released. 19. On 20 November 2003 the court ordered that the accused policemen’s case be joined with another case. No trial date was scheduled. 20. On 24 May 2005 the Warsaw-City District Court decided that it did not have competence to deal with the case and referred it to the WarsawMokotów District Court. The decision became final on 28 July 2005 but the case-file was not transferred to that court until 18 November 2005. 21. The proceedings before the Warsaw Mokotów District Court started on 21 September 2006. One of the reasons for the delay was that, on 10 July 2006, the court had found that the accused had not yet been served with a copy of the bill of indictment, which should normally have taken place at the initial stage of the judicial proceedings. Up to the end of 2006 the court held fourteen hearings. In the first half of 2007 eight hearings took place. 22. On 19 July 2007 the Warsaw Mokotów District Court held that as a result of amendments to the criminal law that had meanwhile entered into force, it no longer had competence to deal with the case and referred it to the Warsaw Regional Court. The parties appealed. 23. On 15 November 2007 the District Court found that the appeals were well-founded and quashed its decision on referral. The case-file, which had meanwhile been transferred to the Regional Court, was returned in June 2008. 24. The trial before the District Court restarted in June 2008. However, as so much time had elapsed, it had to be conducted from the beginning. In 2008 the court held eleven hearings, in 2009 ten hearings and in 2010 seven hearings. 25. On 21 July 2010 the Warsaw Mokotów District Court acquitted the applicant. 2. Proceedings under the 2004 Act (case no. X S 40/10) 26. On 16 April 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint under the 2004 Act (hereafter also referred to as “length complaint”) with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) He sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and 20,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 5,000 euros (EUR)) in compensation. On 1 June 2010 the Warsaw Regional Court held that the length of the proceedings had been excessive from 17 September 2004 to 18 November 2005 (see also paragraph 20 above) and awarded the applicant PLN 2,000 (approximately EUR 500) in compensation. In its assessment of the length of the proceedings, the court took into account only the period starting from 17 September 2004, i.e. the date on which the 2004 Act entered into force. As regards the period after 18 November 2005, the Regional Court found that, despite the fact that “in the first half of 2006, at the stage of preparation for the trial and during the initial hearings the court’s actions [had been] somewhat chaotic and the court had not avoided certain shortcomings”, the proceedings had been conducted with due diligence. In consequence, the court refused to grant the applicant the full sum sought, holding that he had not demonstrated that he had sustained damage in that amount. 3. Application of the “Scordino (no. 1) criteria” 27. In the absence of domestic remedies, the Court’s award, determined with reference to the criteria set in its case-law, in particular the length of the period under consideration (see paragraphs 126-128 and 132 below) and sums usually granted in similar Polish cases would amount to PLN 38,000. The applicant was awarded approximately 5.5% of that sum. On the date of the national court’s decision on the applicant’s complaint, namely 1 June 2010 (see paragraph 26 above) a domestic award, determined with reference to the Court’s awards in similar cases and the Scordino (no.1) criteria (see Scordino (no. 1), cited above, §§ 195-216 and 272) should have reached at least PLN 13,200 in order for the applicant to lose his victim status. B. The case of Mr Orlikowski (application no. 13927/11) 28. The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Łódź. 1. Pre-trial proceedings for securing evidence 29. On 8 September 1998 the applicant lodged an application for the securing of evidence with the Łódź District Court. Pursuant to Article 310 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such an application can be lodged by a prospective party before the initiation of a civil action if there is a fear that the taking of specific evidence will be impossible or too difficult, or if there is a need to establish the state of affairs. The applicant, who intended to bring a civil claim against his landlord for damages resulting from defective performance of a lease contract, asked the court to obtain an expert report determining the state and value of outlays that he had made on the commercial premises that he had rented. The report was submitted to the court on 20 November 1998. A copy thereof was served on the applicant on 8 December 1998. 2. Civil proceedings instituted by the applicant (case no. II C 566/06; I A Ca 750/10) 30. On 4 March 1999 the applicant lodged an action for damages with the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). He also asked the court to secure his claim. An order securing the claim by means of a mortgage on the defendant’s property was given on 17 May 1999. 31. The first hearing was held on 20 September 1999. The next hearing took place on 9 November 2000. In the meantime, the court dealt with some procedural matters involved in the defendant’s interlocutory appeal against the order securing the claim, which was accompanied by his various other requests, such as applications for exemption from court fees or for retrospective leave to appeal out of time. 32. Overall, from 4 March 1999, namely the date on which the claim was lodged, to 6 November 2001 the Regional Court held six hearings and heard evidence from the parties and nine witnesses. The hearings were held on 20 September 1999, 9 November 2000, 17 May, 4 September, 4 October and 6 November 2001. 33. On 30 November 2001 the court gave judgment and rejected the applicant’s claim in its entirety. The applicant appealed on 24 January 2002. 34. On 4 September 2002 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. 35. The re-trial started on 28 November 2002. From that date to 16 May 2005 the Regional Court scheduled four hearings, which were held on 3 February and 3 April 2003, 31 March 2004 and 16 May 2005. It heard evidence from a witness, an expert and the parties. The applicant modified his claim on 16 May 2005. 36. In the meantime, on 31 March 2004 the court had decided to take evidence from an expert in construction. The expert submitted his report on 13 September 2004. 37. On 2 June 2005 the Łódź Regional Court gave its second judgment, partly allowing the applicant’s claim. 38. The judgment was partly quashed on the defendant’s appeal and the case was remitted by the Łódź Court of Appeal on 28 March 2006. On 17 May 2006 the case-file was returned to the Regional Court. 39. On 25 May 2006 the Regional Court ordered the parties to apply for the taking of further evidence that they wished to submit, on pain of rejecting any such subsequent requests. On 13 June 2006 the applicant asked the court to take evidence from one witness and from himself as a party. On 19 June 2006 the defendant asked the court to obtain evidence from two experts. 40. The re-trial started on 20 September 2006. From that date to 19 March 2010 the court scheduled five hearings, which were held on 17 November 2006, 18 July 2007, 5 September 2008, 1 April 2009 and 19 March 2010. It heard evidence from two witnesses, three experts and the parties 41. In the meantime, on 29 December 2006, the court had ordered that evidence from an expert in construction be obtained. It fixed a thirty-day time-limit for submission of his report. The expert submitted the report on 19 March 2007. The defendant asked the court to take evidence from another expert. 42. At the hearing held on 18 July 2007 the parties stated that they would attempt to settle the case. On 12 and 13 September 2007 respectively they informed the court that their negotiations had failed. 43. On 8 November 2007 the court ordered that evidence from three experts – in construction, accountancy and air-conditioning and ventilation – be obtained. The construction expert submitted his report on 7 January 2008, the expert-accountant submitted his report on 22 October 2008 and the airconditioning expert submitted his report on 2 November 2009. The intervals between those dates were caused by the fact that the court waited until each expert had finished his work before sending the materials in the case-file to the following expert. Also, the expert in air-conditioning on several occasions asked the court to extend the time-limits set for submission of his report, which he justified by the volume of his work on other reports, long holidays and difficulties in obtaining a document or in setting a date for an on-site inspection of the premises. The court granted all his requests. 44. On 16 April 2010 the Łódź Regional Court delivered its third judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim in its entirety. The applicant appealed on 6 August 2010. 45. On 5 November 2010 the Łódź Court of Appeal heard the appeal. On 19 November 2010 it partly allowed the applicant’s appeal, altered the contested judgment and granted the applicant’s claim up to the amount of PLN 56,770, with statutory interest. 3. Proceedings under the 2004 Act (case no. I S14/10) 46. On 4 May 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint under the 2004 Act with the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny). He sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and PLN 10,000 Polish zlotys in compensation. 47. On 2 June 2010 the Łódź Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court concluded that, given the complexity of the case and the need to obtain evidence from experts in three different fields, the proceedings had been conducted in a correct and timely manner. In its assessment of the length of the proceedings, the court took into account only the period after 28 March 2006, namely the date on which the Court of Appeal had partly quashed the Regional Court’s judgment of 2 June 2005 (see also paragraph 38 above). 4. Application of the “Scordino (no. 1) criteria” 48. In the absence of domestic remedies, the Court’s award, determined with reference to the criteria set in its case-law, in particular the length of the period under consideration, (see paragraphs 126-128 and 144 below) and sums usually granted in similar Polish cases would amount to PLN 36,400. On the date of the national court’s decision on the applicant’s complaint, i.e. 2 June 2010 (see paragraph 47 above) a domestic award, determined with reference to the Court’s awards in similar cases and the Scordino (no.1) criteria (see Scordino (no. 1), cited above, §§ 195-216 and 272) should have reached at least PLN 11,000 in order for the applicant to lose his victim status. C. The case of Ms Grabowska (application no. 46187/11) 49. The applicant was born in 1955. She lives in Poznań. 1. Background of the case 50. In 1999 the applicant lodged a civil action for payment and accounting (pozew o złożenie rachunku z zarządu i zapłatę) against a certain A.T. with the Gdynia District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The action concerned property which had been inherited by the applicant. 2. Proceedings for adverse possession (VII Ns 2545/99; VII Ns 1543/05; VII Ns 1967/08) 51. On 15 December 1999 A.T. and four other persons applied to the Gdynia District Court for adverse possession (zasiedzenie) of the property in question. The applicant was not notified of the proceedings. 52. On an unspecified date the Gdynia District Court informed the applicant that the proceedings for payment and accounting initiated by her had been stayed pending the outcome of the case concerning adverse possession. 53. On 12 April 2000 the applicant informed the District Court that she wished to join the proceedings. 54. From 15 December 1999 to 19 April 2006 the court heard evidence from four witnesses and two participants in the proceedings. It also ordered that a press announcement be published to all unknown heirs or heirs whose whereabouts were unknown of one of the late predecessors in title to the property. 55. On 19 April 2006 the Gdynia District Court decided that A.T. and four other persons had acquired a half share in the property by adverse possession. 56. The applicant appealed on an unspecified date in April or May 2006. 57. On 18 October 2007 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case, holding that the District Court had failed to make the necessary findings of fact and to determine the merits of the case. Also, the proceedings had been flawed by procedural shortcomings, such as the court’s failure to serve copies of the 1999 application for adverse possession on all the interested partiesincluding the applicant. During the appellate proceedings the court re-opened the case after the hearing and three times adjourned delivery of its decision. 58. On 2 January 2008 the Gdynia District Court asked the Gdańsk Regional Court to transfer the case to the Poznań District Court. On 31 March 2008 the Regional Court refused that request. 59. On 20 September 2008 the applicant was served with a copy of the 1999 application for adverse possession. The document was incomplete, as some pages and appendices were missing. The court informed the applicant that she was entitled to submit a response to the application. 60. On 3 March 2009 the court summoned a certain M.T. to join the proceedings. 61. During the hearing held on 24 April 2009 the court found that the proceedings also concerned the interests of the second husband of one of the petitioners and ordered that the petitioners produce his heirs’ personal details and addresses and serve them with a copy of the application for adverse possession. The parties were informed that the next hearing would not take place before August 2009 because of the judge rapporteur’s planned holidays. 62. On 6 July 2009 the Gdynia District Court summoned a certain J.M.P. to join the proceedings. 63. On 21 September 2009 the proceedings were suspended as the petitioners had failed to produce an extra copy of the 1999 application for adverse possession, which had to be served on J.M.P. 64. On 25 October 2010 the applicant applied for discontinuation of the proceedings. 65. On 4 November 2010 the Gdynia District Court resumed the proceedings and scheduled a hearing for 17 December 2010. 66. Between December 2010 and December 2011 the District Court scheduled four hearings and summoned further persons to join the proceedings. A hearing scheduled for 8 February 2011 had been cancelled because the case-file had meanwhile been transmitted to the Gdańsk Regional Court together with a complaint lodged by the applicant under the 2004 Act, alleging that the length of the proceedings had been excessive (see paragraphs 72-73 below). 67. On 21 February 2012 the District Court gave the second decision on the merits. The applicant appealed on 1 April 2012. 68. On 14 November 2012 the Mayor of the City of Gdynia applied to the Regional Court to be summoned as a party to the proceedings. It was submitted that the District Court had erroneously summoned the Gdańsk First Tax Chamber as the State Treasury’s representative and party in the proceedings. Subsequently, on an unknown date, the Regional Court summoned the Mayor of the City of Gdynia to join the proceedings as a party. 69. On 28 November 2012 the Mayor filed an appeal against the decision of 21 February 2012, invoking the nullity of the entire proceedings on the grounds that it had been impossible to defend his rights. The appellate hearing, which was scheduled for 19 December 2012, was cancelled. 70. On 10 April 2013 the Regional Court held a hearing. The case was closed and the court announced that the judgment would be delivered on 24 April 2013. However, on that date the court reopened the case and fixed a fresh date for a hearing for 4 June 2013. 71. On 4 June 2013 the Court of Appeal again heard the appeals lodged by the applicant and the Mayor of the City of Gdynia. On 18 June 2013 the court gave judgment. It partly amended the firstinstance decision and dismissed the remainder of the appeals. 72. On 15 December 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Gdańsk Regional Court under the 2004 Act. She sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and PLN 20,000 Polish in compensation. 73. On 31 January 2011 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. In its assessment of the length of the proceedings, the court did not to take into account the period before 17 September 2004, namely the date on which the 2004 Act had entered into force, holding that the 2004 Act applied only to the excessive length of proceedings occurring on the date of its entry into force. As regards the subsequent period, it held that the proceedings could not be said to have been excessively long, given that it had been necessary to secure the participation and representation of all the interested parties in the proceedings. 4. Application of the “Scordino (no. 1) criteria” 74. In the absence of domestic remedies, the Court’s award, determined with reference to the criteria set in its case-law, in particular the length of the period under consideration (see paragraphs 126-128 and 154 below) and sums usually granted in similar Polish cases, would amount to PLN 42,000. On the date of the national court’s decision on the applicant’s complaint, namely 31 January 2011 (see paragraph 73 above), a domestic award, determined with reference to the Court’s awards in similar cases and the Scordino (no.1) criteria (see Scordino (no. 1), cited above, §§ 195-216 and 272) should have reached at least PLN 11,000 in order for the applicant to lose her victim status.