FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 1339/09 by Maria IWIŃSKA and Jerzy MAZUR against Poland

The European Court of Human Righ ts (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza , President, Lech Garlicki , Giovanni Bonello , Ljiljana Mijović , Ján Šikuta , Mihai Poalelungi , Nebojša Vučinić , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 December 2008,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 4 January 2009 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants ’ reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Ms Maria Iwińska (the first applicant) and Mr Jerzy Mazur (the second applicant) , are Polish nationals who were born in 1957 and 1946 respectively and live in Szczecin . They were represented before the Court by Mr A. Marecki , a lawyer practising in Szczecin . The Polish Government (“the Government”) were re presented 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.

1. Criminal proceedings against the applicants

The applicants were charged, on 22 and 23 February 1999 respectively, with having caused damage to State property.

On 29 June 2000 a bill of indictment was lodged against the applicants with the Szczecin District Court.

The first hearing was held on 28 November 2003.

Subsequently, hearings were held on 5 January, 18 February and 18 March 2004.

On 23 April, 12 August and 21 September 2004 an expert was heard.

On 25 October 2004 and 10 January 2005 the court heard another two experts.

The next hearings were held on 12 May and 22 June 2005.

A hearing scheduled for 2 August 2005 was adjourned, due to an expert ’ s absence.

On 28 September 2005 another expert was heard. The court requested him to prepare a written opinion.

Subsequent hearings were held on 28 February and 3 April 2006.

On 18 August 2006 the trial re-commenced ( due to the lay-judge ’ s long ‑ standing illness ) .

The next hearings were held on 10 October and 24 November 2006 and 31 January and 14 March 2007.

On 20 March 2007 the Szczecin District Court found the applicants guilty as charged. The first applicant was sentenced to one year ’ s imprisonment suspended on probation. The second applicant was sentenced to one year and six months ’ imprisonment suspended on probation. The court imposed fines of 1,200 and 2,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) on the applicants respectively.

On 20 November 2007 the Szczecin Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case. It held that the second applicant ’ s right to defend hims elf had been breached as he had not been properly informed about the delivery of the judgment.

Subsequently, the Szczecin District Court held hearings on 12 March, 24 April and 28 May 2008.

On 20 October 2008 the Szczecin District Court gave its judgment. The first applicant was acquitted. The second applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to one year and three months ’ imprisonment suspended on probation and a fine.

On 4 December 2008 the second applicant appealed against the judgment.

On 10 July 2009 the Szczecin Regional Court part l y amended the judgment appealed against, upholding it as to the penalty imposed.

2. Proceedings under the 2004 Act

On 1 December 2004 the applicant s lodged a complaint with the Szczecin Regional Court about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time in respect of the criminal proceedings against them and asked for just satisfaction. They relied on 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 stro ny do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu są dowym bez nieuzasadnione j zwł oki – “the 2004 Act”), which entered into force on 17 September 2004.

On 29 May 2008 the Szczecin Regional Court acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings and granted each of the applicants PLN 4,000 as just satisfaction (the equivalent of EUR 1,200 at that time). The court stressed that even though certain delays were attributable to unexpected circumstances rather than to the trial court (the lay-judge ’ s illness), the proceedings had nonetheless lasted an unreasonably long time.

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 provis ions of the 2004 Act, are described in the Court ’ s decisions in the cases of CharzyÅ„ ski v. Poland ( dec .), no. 15212/03, §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005 ‑ V and Ratajczyk v. Poland ( dec .), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005 ‑ VIII, and its judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland , no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedin gs.

THE LAW

A. Length of proceedings

The applicants complained about the length of the proceedings . They 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 30 December 2009 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:

“1. The Government hereby wish to express – by way of the unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicants were involved. In consequence, the applicants can claim to be victims of violation of their right to have their case examined in the “reasonable time” in the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

2. In these circumstances, and having regard to the particular facts of the case, the Government declare that they offer to pay to the ap plicants (Mr Jerzy Mazur and Ms Maria Iwińska ) the amount of PLN 7,500 (seven thousand five hundred Polish zlotys) and PLN 5,700 (five thousand seven hundred Polish zlotys) respectively, which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court ’ s case-law. The sums referred to above, which are 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 those sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at the rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default periods plus three percentage points.

3. 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 10 February 2010 the applicants expressed the view that the sum s mentioned in the Government ’ s declaration were 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 bearing in mind the compensation the applicants received at the domestic level – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).

Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration 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.

FatoÅŸ Aracı Nicolas Bratza              Deputy Registrar President