PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 41701/07) 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 Jan Załuska (“the applicant”), on 18 September 2007.

The applicant was represented by Mr W. Wrzecionkowski, a lawyer practising in Olsztyn. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

On 7 February 2008 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It 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

The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Warszawa.

A. Main proceedings [proceedings for redress for unwarranted pre-trial detention]

On 31 December 1991 the applicant instituted proceedings for redress for obviously unwarranted pre-trial detention (o odszkodowanie za oczywiście niesłuszne tymczasowe aresztowanie).

On 28 November 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court scheduled the first hearing for 9 January 2001.

On 9 January 2001 the applicant’s representative requested the court for additional time to specify his claim for redress. The court adjourned the hearing sine die.

On 14 June 2004 the applicant’s representative requested the court to grant him additional time to update legal and factual grounds for the applicant’s claim. The court adjourned the hearing.

On 22 February 2005 the applicant’s representative requested the court to exclude the presiding judge from the proceedings.

On 7 July 2005 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s motion.

On 6 September 2005 the court scheduled the next hearing for 13 October 2005.

On 13 October 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of civil proceedings instituted by the applicant. The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against this decision.

On 8 November 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed the contested decision and resumed the examination of the case.

On 28 December 2005, 18 May, 25 September, 17 October and 24 October 2006 the Warsaw Regional Court held hearings.

On 5 December 2006 the Warsaw Regional Court again stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the civil proceedings instituted by the applicant. The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against this decision.

On 9 February 2007 the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed the contested decision and resumed the examination of the case.

On 30 March 2007 the court, due to a modification in the bench assigned to try the case (zmiana składu sędziowskiego), reopened the proceedings. One witness was heard. The court scheduled the next hearing for 15 June 2007.

Eventually, on 27 September 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court awarded the applicant PLN 2,277,838 in compensation for pecuniary damage and PLN 45,000 for non-pecuniary damage. Since this judgment was not appealed against, it became final on 19 October 2007.

B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act

On 20 April 2007 the applicant filed a complaint under 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”). On 25 May 2007 the Warsaw Court of Appeal confirmed that the proceedings in question had indeed been lengthy and awarded the applicant PLN 3,0001 by way of just satisfaction. The court stated, inter alia, that the periods of inactivity between 31 December 1991 and 28 November 2000, as well as between 9 January 2001 and 6 May 2004, only confirmed the fact that the court had contributed to the excessive length of the proceedings. The court further stated that the intervals between the hearings were considerable and contributed to the overall length of proceedings. The court also referred to the fact that the Warsaw Regional Court’s decisions of 13 October 2005 and 5 December 2006 to stay the proceedings were unwarranted and also affected the length of the proceedings. Finally, the court stated that, although the applicant’s representative had lodged several futile motions which affected the pace of the proceedings, the Warsaw Regional Court took no action to discipline him.