FIRST SECTION

CASE OF JANULIS v. POLAND

( Application no. 31792/15 )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

16 January 2020

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Janulis v. Poland ,

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

Armen Harutyunyan , President, Krzysztof Wojtyczek , Pauliine Koskelo, judges, and Abel Campos , Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 17 December 2019 ,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in an application (no. 31792/15) against the Republic of Poland lodg ed with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Mr Kamil Janulis (“the applicant”), on 13 May 2015.

2 . The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska and subsequently by Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

3 . On 6 July 2017 the Government were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

4 . The applicant was born in 1980 and is detained in Kamińsk Prison.

5 . On 13 November 2012 the applicant was charged with fraud. On 5 September 2012 the applicant was heard as a witness and on 7 December 2012 as a suspect.

6 . Between 21 December 2012 and 11 March 2013 the proceeding were stayed as the second suspect charged in the case had been searched by the police. On 20 June 2013 an expert opinion on the applicant ’ s handwriting requested by the prosecutor was prepared.

7 . Afterwards, the investigation was again stayed because the second suspect could not be found. In 2014 the prosecutor was informed that the suspect had left Poland and lived in the United Kingdom. In January 2015 the prosecutor decided to issue an arrest warrant to search for him.

8 . On 7 June 2017 the Ostróda District Prosecutor severed charges against the applicant to a separate set of proceedings.

9 . On 21 June 2017 the applicant was indicted before the Ostróda District Court.

10 . It appears that the trial court held one hearing and on 8 August 2017 it convicted the applicant. He was sentenced to eight months ’ imprisonment. The applicant did not appeal and the judgment is final.

11 . The applicant lodged five complaints 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”).

12 . The complaints l odged on 15 October 2013 and 16 December 2014 were dismissed as manifestly ill-founded and two other complaints were rejected as they had been lodged less than twelve months following a previous decision under the 2004 Act.

13 . On 28 February 2017 the Elbląg Regional Court partly allowed his last complaint and found that the length of the investigation had been excessive. It awarded the applicant 3,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in compensation (approximately 700 euros (EUR) at the material time). The court considered that for the last few years the actions of the prosecutor had been limited to repeating sporadic requests to various domestic institutions inquiring after the second suspect ’ s address. Those activities concerned the other suspect and not the applicant. Moreover, between each such action there had been long periods of inactivity. The court also suggested that the prosecutor could have had already in 2014 severed charges against the applicant to a separate set of proceedings which would have allowed him to indict the applicant for the offences which he had allegedly committed.

14 . A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for excessive length of judicial proceedings – in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act – are presented in the Court ’ s decisions in the cases of Charzyński v. Poland (( dec. ), no. 15212/03, §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V) and Ratajczyk v. Poland (( dec. ), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005-VIII), and in its judgments in the cases of Krasuski v. Poland (no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V) and, most recently, Rutkowski and Others v. Poland (nos. 72287/10, 13927/11 and 46187/11, §§ 75-107, 7 July 2015).

THE LAW

15 . The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requ irement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal...”

16 . The Government contested that argument.

17 . The period to be taken into consideration began on 13 November 2012 and ended on 8 August 2017 (see paragraphs 5 and 10 above). It thus lasted 4 years and 9 months for one level of jurisdiction.

18 . The Government raised a preliminary objection that the applicant can no longer be considered a “victim”, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The Court notes that this issue falls to be determined in the light of the principles established under the Court ’ s case-law (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69 ‑ 107 , ECHR 2006 ‑ V , and Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178 ‑ 213 , ECHR 2006 ‑ V ).

19 . The applicant disagreed and considered that the award he had obtained domestically had not been satisfactory, taking into account the overall length of the proceedings.

20 . The Court notes that the Elbląg Regional Court analysed the course of the impugned proceedings in the light of the criteria which the Court itself applies. It concluded that there had been delays for which the domestic authorities should be held responsible and the applicant ’ s right to a hearing without unjustified delay had been breached and awarded the applicant the equivalent of EUR 700 in respect of the length of the proceedings. The just satisfaction awarded by the Elbląg Regional Court amounts to approximately 27 per cent of what the Court would be likely to have awarded the applicant at that time in accordance with its practice, taking into account the particular circumstances of the case.

21 . The Court finds that the redress provided to the applicant at domestic level, considered on the basis of the facts of which he complains before the Court, was insufficient (see Czajka v. Poland , no. 15067/02, § 56, 13 February 2007 , and Pastuszenia v. Poland , no. 46074/07, § 37, 21 September 2010 ). In these circumstances, the argument that the applicant has lost his victim status cannot be upheld.

22 . The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

23 . The applicant argued that the length of the proceedings had clearly been in breach of the “reasonable time” principle. The prosecutor was not diligent and dealt with a very simple case for an excessive number of years.

24 . The Government refrained from commenting on the merits of the applicant ’ s complaint.

25 . The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and taking into account the criteria laid down in the Court ’ s case ‑ law, in particular the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities. On the latter point, account must also be taken of what is at stake for the applicant (see KudÅ‚a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 124 ECHR 2000 ‑ XI, for further case ‑ law references see Rutkowski and Others , cited above, §§ 126 ‑ 128).

26 . The Court agrees with the applicant that the proceedings did not involve complex issues of facts and law. It took the trial court about six weeks to give a judgment after having received the bill indictment (see paragraph 10 above). There is also no appearance that the applicant had in any way contributed to the overall length of the proceedings in his case.

27 . As to the conduct of the authorities, the Court observes that charges against the applicant were brought in November 2012 but he was indicted only in June 2017. At the initial stage of the investigation the prosecutor took evidence from the applicant and in June 2013 obtained an expert opinion on his handwriting (see paragraph 6 above). However, during the subsequent four years the prosecutors ’ procedural activity concentrated exclusively on the other suspect, who had apparently fled Poland. There is no evidence of any action of the prosecutor during this period, which would concern the applicant (see paragraphs 7 and 13 above). In consequence, the case against the applicant lay dormant for the period of four years until the prosecutor decided to follow the Elbląg Regional Court ’ s suggestion to severe charges against him to a separate set of the proceedings. The Court fully endorses the domestic court ’ s critical assessment of the prosecutor ’ s inactivity in the applicant ’ s case (see paragraph 13 above).

28 . Accordingly, having regard to the four-year period of total inactivity of the investigative authorities in examination of the charges against the applicant, the Court considers that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

29 . The applicant further submitted that he had no effective domestic remedy in respect of the protracted length of proceedings in his case. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads:

“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.”

30 . The Government failed to comment on the applicant ’ s complaint.

31 . The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.

32 . The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see KudÅ‚a , cited above, §§ 146-56 ). The relevan t principles, as established in KudÅ‚a and the Court ’ s subsequent judgments, has been set out in Rutkowski pilot judgment ( Rutkowski and Others , cited above, §§ 126 ‑ 128)

33 . The Court has already found that that the applicant ’ s right to a hearing within a reasonable time guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention has not been respected (see paragraph 28 above). There is, therefore, no doubt that his complaint is “arguable” for the purposes of Article 13 and that he was entitled to a remedy whereby he could obtain appropriate relief for the Convention breach before the domestic authority, including compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered on account of delays that had occurred in his case (s ee Kudła , cited above, § 157).

34 . On 28 February 2017 the Elbląg Regional Court partly allowed the applicant ’ s fifth complaint under the 2004 Act and acknowledged that the length of the investigation had been excessive compensation. However, t he Court has found that the amount of compensation awarded to the applicant had been insufficient in the light of the standards set by the Court (see paragraph 21 above).

35 . In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that a complaint under the 2004 Act failed to provide the applicant with “appropriate and sufficient redress” in terms of adequate compensation for the excessive length of the proceedings in his case (see Scordino (no.1) , § 181 and Rutkowski and Others , cited above, § 183).

36 . There has accordingly been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.

37 . Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

38 . The applicant claimed equivalent to 1,800 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

39 . The Government did not express an opinion on the matter.

40 . The Court considers that it should award the full sum claimed.

41 . The applicant did not make any claim for the costs and expenses.

42 . The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 1,800 (one thousand eight hundred euros), to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 January 2020 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Abel Campos Armen Harutyunyan Registrar President