CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 mai 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s40E9DAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s9D7F0777 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA13580DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB853CD2D { font-family:Arial; font-size:1pt } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s66CC5A41 { width:26.02pt; display:inline-block } .sACF3BD4F { width:199.63pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 4282/10 Tadeusz Gabriel RUTKOWSKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21   May 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Päivi Hirvelä, President,   Ledi Bianku,   Paul Mahoney, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 11   January 2010, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 27 June 2012 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   Tadeusz Gabriel Rutkowski, is a Polish national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Gdańsk. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms   J.   Chrzanowska, 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.     Main proceedings (case nos. VI DS 6/98, II K 31/05) On 24   September   1998 the applicant was charged with handling stolen goods. By a judgment of 27   July   2010 the Gdańsk District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) convicted the applicant. The applicant appealed against the judgment. On 19   December 2011 the Gdańsk Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) upheld the applicant’s conviction. 2.     Proceedings under the 2004 Act (case no. V S 37/09) On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint 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”). He sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and claimed PLN   10,000 in compensation. By a decision of 16   November   2009 the Gdańsk Regional Court held that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and awarded the applicant PLN   1,000 in compensation. 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 (dec.) , no.   15212/03, §§   12-23, ECHR 2005-V; Ratajczyk v.   Poland (dec.) , no.   11215/02, ECHR 2005-VIII; and the judgment in the case of Krasuski v.   Poland , no.   61444/00, §§   34-46, ECHR   2005-V. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against him. The applicant also alleged a breach of Article   13 of the Convention in that he had not had an effective remedy against the excessive length of the proceedings. THE LAW A.     Length of proceedings The applicant complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Article   6   §   1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows: Article 6 § 1 “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 27   June 2012 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of 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 the unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the unreasonable duration of the applicant’s criminal proceedings (Article   6   §   1 of the Convention). Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicant the sum of PLN   20,000 (twenty thousand Polish zlotys) which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case law. 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 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 17   December 2012 the applicant contested the unilateral declaration submitted by the Government. He 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 ‑ V; Majewski v.   Poland , no.   52690/99, 11   October 2005; 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. B.     Remaining complaint The applicant complained under Article   13 of the Convention that he had had no ‘effective remedy’ against the excessive length of the proceedings. Article   13 provides: “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.” In this regard, the Court recalls that it has already found that the 2004   Act provides for an effective remedy in respect of the excessive length of proceedings (see Charzyński v.   Poland (dec.), no.   15212/03, §§   12-23, ECHR 2005 ‑ V; Figiel v.   Poland (no.   1) , no.   38190/05, §§   25-30, 17   July   2008; Figiel v.   Poland (no.   2) , no.   38206/05, §§   29-34, 16   September 2008). It follows that the remainder of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention concerning the length of the proceedings, 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 so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37   §   1   (c) of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.     Fatoş Aracı   Päivi Hirvelä   Deputy Registrar   President