FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF FLIEGER v. POLAND

( Application no. 36262/08 )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

22 June 2010

FINAL

22/09 /2010

This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Flieger v. Poland ,

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza , President, Lech Garlicki , Giovanni Bonello , Ljiljana Mijović , David Thór Björgvinsson , Ledi Bianku , Mihai Poalelungi , judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 1 June 2010 ,

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

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in an application (no. 36262/08) against the Republic of Poland lodged 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 Waldemar Flieger (“the applicant”), on 14 July 2008 .

2 . The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

3 . On 5 February 2009 the President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government . I t was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3) .

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4 . The applicant was born in 1975 and is currently detained at the detention centre in Cheł mno .

A . Main proceedings

5 . On an unspecified date at the beginning of 1999 a criminal investigation was opened against the applicant.

6 . On 18 June 1999 the applicant was indicted before the Åšwiecie District Court ( SÄ…d Rejonowy ) on charges of burglaries committed in the period between 9 December 1998 and 17 February 1999. The bill of indictment concerned also five other accused.

7 . The first hearings listed for 26 and 27 October 1999 were cancelled due to the judge rapporteur ' s reassignment to another court.

8 . Hearings which were to be held on 8 and 9 December 1999 were adjourned as one of the co- accused failed to appear.

9 . On 1 March 2000 the first hearing took place.

10 . Further hearings were held on 22 March, 12 April and 17 May 2000.

11 . The hearing listed for 7 June 2000 was adjourned.

12 . On 12 July and 25 August 2000 the next hearings took place.

13 . The hearing listed for 12 October 2000 was adjourned due to the absence of one of the co- accused.

14 . On 21 November and 20 December 2000 the court held hearings.

15 . On 26 January 2001 the court decided to recommence the trial from the beginning owing to the necessity of the participation of the applicant ' s lawyer. The court ordered also that an expert report be obtained in order to determine the applicant ' s mental condition.

16 . The hearing listed for 2 March 2001 was cancelled due to the fact that the judge rapporteur had been changed.

17 . The next hearing was not scheduled until 13 August 2003. However, it was adjourned four times until 31 March 2004 due to the absence of the co- accused – a certain Z.W.

18 . In the following period until 3 December 2007, 11 hearings were held and 17 others were adjourned or cancelled. In particular, all hearings scheduled in the period between 12 April and 13 October 2005 were adjourned.

19 . On 3 December 2007 a new judge rapporteur was assigned to the case.

20 . During the hearing scheduled for 25 January 2008 the court decided that it was necessary to conduct the proceedings from the beginning. The court adjourned the hearing on the request of the applicant .

21 . Subsequently, the court held hearing s on the following dates: 28 March, 15 May and 25 August 2008.

22 . On 20 January 2009 the Åšwiecie District Court sentenced the applicant to one year and three months ' imprisonment. It appears that the applicant failed to appeal and the judgment became final.

B . Proceedings under the 2004 Act

23 . On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Bydgoszcz Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) under section 5 of 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 ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Gliwice District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction i n the amount of 15,000 Polish zl otys (PLN).

24 . On 8 July 2008 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court dismissed the applicant ' s complaint. The court found that the Åšwiecie District Court had undertaken the necessary steps to conclude the proceeding s . The court stressed, in particular, that the applicant had failed to demonstrate the unjustified inactivity on the part of the trial court. Instead, he had generally only claimed that the proceeding had lasted too long.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

25 . 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 no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V and Ratajczyk v. Poland no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII , and the judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland , no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V.

THE LAW

I . ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNREASONABLE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS

26 . The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, 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 ...”

27 . The Government failed to submit any observation s on the case .

28 . The period to be taken into consideration began on an unspecified date at the beginning of 1999 and ended on 20 January 2009. It thus lasted some ten years for one level of jurisdiction.

A. Admissibility

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

B. Merits

30 . The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

31 . The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Frydlender , cited above). Furthermore, the Court considers that, in dismissing the applicant ' s complaint that the proceedings in his case exceeded a reasonable time, t he Bydgoszcz Regional Court failed to apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in the Court ' s case-law (see Majewski v. Poland , no. 52 690/99, § 36, 11 October 2005).

32 . Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1 .

II . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

33 . 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 rep ara tion to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A. Damage

34 . The applicant requested the Court that compensation be granted for non-pecuniary damage, without however specifying its exact amount.

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

36 . The Court , r uling on an equitable basis , awards the applicant EUR 8,0 00 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

B. Costs and expenses

37 . The applicant did not make any claim for costs and expenses involved in the proceedings.

C. Default interest

38 . The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest 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

1. Declares the application admissible;

2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

3 . Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant , within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 8,000 (eight thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage , plus any tax that may be chargeable to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate appli cable at the date of settlement ;

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 June 2010 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza Deputy Registrar President