Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SECOND CHAMBER

Application No. 25086/94

Bronislawa Proszak

against

Poland

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 4 September 1996)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION

(paras. 1-16). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

A. The application

(paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

B. The proceedings

(paras. 5-11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

C. The present Report

(paras. 12-16). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

(paras. 17-38) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 39-52) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

A. Complaint declared admissible

(para. 39). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

B. Point at issue

(para. 40). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

C. As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

(paras. 41-51). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

CONCLUSION

(para. 52). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

APPENDIX I: PARTIAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO

THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . .8

APPENDIX II: FINAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO

the ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . 12

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the

European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the

Commission.

A. The application

2. The applicant is a Polish citizen, born in 1926 and resident in

Stalowa Wola.

3. The application is directed against Poland. The respondent

Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. Krzysztof Drzewicki,

of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

4. The case relates to the length of civil proceedings instituted

by the applicant. The applicant invokes Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention.

B. The proceedings

5. The application was introduced on 28 April 1994 and registered

on 6 September 1994.

6. On 17 January 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the

complaint concerning the length of the civil proceedings to the Polish

Government who were invited to submit their observations on its

admissibility and merits before 28 March 1995. The Commission declared

the remainder of the application inadmissible.

7. At the Government's request the time-limit for the submission of

the observations was subsequently extended twice, until 20 April and

30 May 1995, respectively.

8. The Government did not request a further extension of the time-

limit and did not submit any observations. By letter of

4 September 1995 the Government were informed that the application was

being considered for inclusion in the list of cases for examination by

the Commission at its session beginning on 16 October 1995.

9. On 18 October 1995 the Commission declared admissible the

applicant's complaint under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

10. The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent

to the parties on 27 October 1995 and they were invited to submit such

further information or observations on the merits as they wished. The

Government submitted observations on 6 November 1995.

11. After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in

accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed

itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a

friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the

Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement

can be effected.

C. The present Report

12. The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission (Second

Chamber) in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after

deliberations and votes, the following members being present:

Mrs. G.H. THUNE, President

MM. J.-C. GEUS

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

E. BIELIUNAS

13. The text of this Report was adopted on 4 September 1996 by the

Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the

Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the

Convention.

14. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the

Convention, is:

(i) to establish the facts, and

(ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose

a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under

the Convention.

15. The Commission's decisions on the admissibility of the

application are annexed hereto.

16. The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the

documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the

Commission.

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

17. On 20 December 1988 the applicant was assaulted and beaten by her

neighbour R.T. On 29 November 1989 the Stalowa Wola District Court

(S*d Rejonowy) convicted the latter of assault and causing bodily harm

and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment. On 12 March 1990 the

Tarnobrzeg Regional Court (S*d Wojewódzki) decided to discontinue the

proceedings by virtue of the Amnesty Act.

18. On 25 October 1990 the applicant filed a civil action with the

Stalowa Wola District Court against R.T. claiming compensation of five

million zloty for damage resulting from the assault. At an unspecified

later date she increased her claim.

19. On 14 April 1992 a psychiatrist B.S. was heard as an expert.

20. On 23 February 1993 the applicant underwent a psychiatric

examination by two experts W.S. and A.S. ordered by the Stalowa Wola

District Court for the purposes of the civil proceedings for

compensation.

21. On 8 June 1993 the Court held a hearing and heard psychiatrist

W.S. as an expert, whose patient the applicant had been during the

preceding ten years. He maintained his opinion of 23 February 1993 in

its entirety and expressed disagreement with the conclusions of the

opinion of B.S.

22. On 18 June 1993 the applicant refused to undergo a further

psychiatric examination. She contended that there were sufficient

documents in the case-file relating to her mental health as she had

already been examined by psychiatrists at least twice in the course of

the proceedings. She pointed out that she did not understand how a

further psychiatric examination of the victim of an assault could be

useful for the determination of the civil liability of the defender.

23. On 7 September 1993 the applicant informed the Court that she had

been unable to attend a hearing on 2 September 1993 for health reasons

and submitted a medical certificate to this effect. She also

complained about the length of the proceedings.

24. On 6 October 1993 a date for the applicant's further psychiatric

examination in the Stalowa Wola hospital was fixed.

25. Subsequently the applicant complained to the President of the

Stalowa Wola District Court about the delay in the proceedings. On

19 October 1993 the President informed her that this was in part due

to her refusal to undergo a further medical examination. He found no

indications of lack of diligence on the part of the Court.

26. On 26 October 1993 the applicant complained to the Minister of

Justice about the length of the proceedings. She submitted that the

President of the Court had failed to reply to three of her complaints.

She challenged the judge claiming that she had not diligently dealt

with the case and was biased against the applicant. On 2 November 1993

the Ministry transmitted this letter to the President of the Tarnobrzeg

Regional Court.

27. On 16 November 1993 the applicant requested to be examined by a

psychiatrist specialised in the syndrome of former prisoners of the

German concentration camps as she had been imprisoned in Ravensbrück

during the Second World War.

28. Subsequently the applicant formally challenged the judge

rapporteur in her case on the ground that the proceedings had exceeded

a reasonable time.

29. On 10 March 1994 the District Court in Stalowa Wola dismissed the

applicant's challenge of the judge as lacking a basis in law.

30. The applicant apparently appealed against this decision, but her

appeal was rejected as not complying with the formal requirements.

31. On 9 January 1996 the applicant informed the Stalowa Wola

District Court that she was unable to undergo the psychiatric

examination scheduled for 23 January 1996 because of bad health. She

complained about the length of the proceedings. She also submitted

that this examination was redundant in view of the fact that she had

already been examined.

32. On 15 January 1996 the Court informed the applicant that her

case-file had been sent to the Lublin Medical Academy for a further

expert opinion to be prepared.

33. On 18 January 1996 the applicant requested the Court to proceed

further with the case in her absence as she had already submitted to

the court all information which she considered relevant to the outcome

of the case.

34. The date of a further medical examination was set for

23 January 1996.

35. On 18 March 1996 the applicant informed the court that she was

unable to attend the hearing scheduled for 20 March, due to bad health.

She submitted a medical certificate.

36. In a letter of 20 March 1996 the court asked the applicant

whether in view of her illness she would not prefer to be heard at her

domicile instead of being summoned to the court.

37. On 2 April 1996 the applicant informed the court of her bad

health.

38. On 16 May 1996 the Stalowa Wola District Court pronounced a first

instance judgment, partly allowing the applicant's claim. The

defendant filed an appeal against the judgment.

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Complaint declared admissible

39. The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint

that her case was not determined within a reasonable time.

B. Point at issue

40. The only point at issue is whether the length of the proceedings

complained of exceeded the "reasonable time" requirement set out in

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

C. As regards Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention

41. The relevant part of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention provides as follows:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...

everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time

by (a) ... tribunal ..."

42. The applicant submits that the courts are slow in dealing with

her case. She submits that the length of the proceedings has exceeded

a reasonable time as no complex issues are involved. She contends that

there were several periods of inactivity in the proceedings; that the

court is unable to determine the steps to be taken and to take any

decision. The applicant contends that there are sufficient documents

in the case-file relating to her mental health for the court to rule

in the case. She maintains that there was no progress in the

proceedings at least since September 1993.

43. The Government submit that the case was complex in that the

decision necessitated expert opinions as to the causal link between the

assault and the alleged deterioration of health. Therefore the court

had to order several opinions. As these opinions were contradictory,

the court found it necessary to order a further opinion. The efforts

to find a relevant specialist were to no avail. Finally, after

numerous letters and requests to various institutions, an expert

opinion of the Lublin Medical Academy was ordered. Regard must be had

to the special character and authority of the opinion of the scientific

institutions, to which the courts attach particular weight when taking

decisions. The applicant contributed to the delay as in June 1993 she

refused to undergo a medical examination. Later in November 1993 she

herself requested that she be examined by a specialist in the syndrome

of former prisoners of the German concentration camps as she had been

imprisoned in Ravensbrück during the Second World War. The applicant

further unsuccessfully challenged the judge rapporteur which

contributed to the prolongation of the proceedings. The Government

conclude that in the period after 1 May 1993 the case was pursued by

the authorities with due diligence.

44. The Commission observes that the proceedings complained of began

on 25 October 1990 when the applicant lodged her action with the

Stalowa Wola District Court. The proceedings are still pending before

the first instance court.

45. The Commission recalls that the period to be considered began on

1 May 1993, the date on which the recognition by Poland of the right

of individual petition took effect. The Commission further recalls

that in cases where it can, by reason of its competence ratione

temporis, only examine part of the proceedings, it can take into

account, in order to assess the length, the stage reached in the

proceedings at the beginning of the period under consideration (see

No. 7984/77, Dec. 11.7.79, D.R. 16 p. 92). The proceedings have lasted

to date five years and ten months. The period which falls after the

date of recognition of the right of individual petition is three years

and four months.

46. The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of the length of

proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular

circumstances of the case and on the basis of the following criteria:

the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties and the conduct

of the authorities dealing with the case (see Eur. Court H.R., Vernillo

v. France judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, p. 12,

para. 30).

47. The Commission considers that the present proceedings do not seem

to be particularly complex. The facts of the criminal offence which

gave rise to the compensation claim had been established in the

judgment of the criminal court in 1989. Thus the crucial circumstances

which remain to be established are whether the applicant suffered any

damage to her health and whether there is a causal link between the

offence and the damage suffered. The Court has already ordered three

psychiatric expert opinions in this respect, which could have provided

a sufficient basis for a decision. The fact that the experts'

conclusions were discrepant does not, in the Commission's view, justify

the delay in the proceedings. It is for the court to draw conclusions

from the expert opinions as to their significance for the outcome of

the case, even if the experts are not in agreement.

48. As regards the applicant's conduct, it is true that the applicant

increased her claim in the course of the proceedings, but this should

not be held against her, as there was considerable inflation during the

time the proceedings remained pending. The applicant also has

contributed to the length of the proceedings by challenging a judge.

She further demanded that a third expert opinion be prepared. However,

it is for the court to determine whether a particular expert opinion

is of significance for the outcome of the case. The Stalowa Wola

District Court considered that this opinion was relevant for the case

and decided to comply with the applicant's request. On the whole, the

Commission finds that the applicant's conduct cannot explain the total

length of the proceedings.

49. As regards the conduct of the authorities, the Commission

observes that on the whole three expert opinions as to the applicant's

mental health were ordered and two experts were heard by the court.

The Commission notes that the Government did not furnish a convincing

explanation as to the reasons for the delay in finding an expert who

would prepare the third opinion. Neither was it explained why these

efforts had initially failed. The failure to appoint an expert

resulted in a further delay in the proceedings. The Commission notes

in this respect that the applicant requested that a third expert

opinion be taken in November 1993 and in January 1996 this opinion was

still not submitted to the court. The Commission recalls that a court

shall see to it that an expert appointed by the court performs his task

expeditiously (Eur. Court H.R., Capuano v. Italy judgment of

25 June 1985, Series A no. 119, p. 13, para. 30).

50. In view of these circumstances the Commission considers that in

the period since 1 May 1993 it cannot be said that the authorities were

diligent in the conduct of the case. They are therefore mainly

responsible for the length of the proceedings.

51. In the light of the criteria established by the case-law and

having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Commission

considers that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed

to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.

CONCLUSION

52. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that in the present case

there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention.

M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE

Secretary President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

Menu

PROSZACK v. Poland

PROSZACK v. Poland

LEXI