FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 48033/11 Krzysztof STENZEL against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 25 September 2018 as a Committee composed of:

Aleš Pejchal, President, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Armen Harutyunyan, judges, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 July 2011,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Krzysztof Stenzel, is a Polish national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Rumia.

2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, who was later replaced by Ms A. M ęż ykowska, the Co-Agent, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

A. The circumstances of the case

3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4. On 19 August 1993 the applicant was charged with battery. Subsequently, the investigation was stayed for several years. On 30 January 1998 the applicant was indicted before the Gdynia District Court.

5. The trial court gave judgments on 15 November 2001, 19 September 2007 and 26 March 2009. They were quashed upon appeals by the Gdańsk Regional Court, respectively, on 10 January 2003, 7 July 2008 and 7 December 2009.

6. Between 16 December 2005 and 3 February 2006 the applicant was detained on remand.

7. On 21 June 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Gdańsk Court of Appeal under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaint about breach of the right to have a case examined in an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and in judicial proceedings without undue delay ( ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki - “the 2004 Act”). He sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and claimed 20,000 Polish zlotys in compensation.

8. On 21 July 2010 the Gdynia District Court gave a judgment in which it discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant due to statute of limitations. The applicant was present at the delivery of the judgment. The applicant did not appeal against it and it became final on 29 July 2010.

9. On 3 November 2010 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal partly dismissed and partly rejected the applicant ’ s complaint under the 2004 Act. The written copy of the decision was notified to the applicant ’ s household on 5 November 2010.

B. Relevant domestic law

10. A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for excessive leng th of judicial proceedings – in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act – are presented in the Court ’ s judgment Rutkowski and Others v. Poland (nos. 72287/10, 13927/11 and 46187/11, §§ 75-107, 7 July 2015).

COMPLAINT

11. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against him.

12. In addition the applicant complained under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention about his pre-trial detention and the conditions of this detention.

THE LAW

13. The applicant ’ s first complaint relates to the length of the proceedings which began in 1993 and ended on 21 July 2010.

14. The Government raised a preliminary objection and submitted that the case should be rejected for failure to comply with the six ‑ month requirement. They submitted that the judgment of 21 July 2010 was not appealed against and became final. Afterwards, on 3 November 2010 the GdaÅ„sk Court of Appeal examined the complaint under the 2004 Act which had been lodged by the applicant in the course of the criminal proceedings. That decision was delivered to the applicant ’ s household on 5 November 2010.

15. The applicant did not comment on the Government ’ s objection.

16. The Court notes that the applicant failed to inform it that the criminal proceedings complained of ended on 21 July 2010. It further notes that his complaint under the 2004 Act was dismissed on 3 November 2010. The applicant lodged his application with the Court on 13 July 2011 which is more than six months after the date on which that decision was served on him.

17. Secondly, the applicant raised several complaints pertaining to his pre ‑ trial detention. However, the Court notes that the applicant lodged his application more than six months after the date of his release from detention on 3 February 2006.

18. Accordingly, the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 18 October 2018 .

Renata Degener Aleš Pejchal Deputy Registrar President