PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 13401/03) 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 Jerzy Pardus (“the applicant”), on 26 March 2003.

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

The applicant alleged, in particular, that the length of several sets of proceedings in which he was involved exceeded a reasonable time, as provided for in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

On 9 September 2008 the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to communicate the complaint concerning the length of one set of civil and one set of criminal proceedings to the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of these complaints at the same time.

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

A. Civil proceedings for payment

On 10 June 1994 the applicant lodged a claim for payment against a certain company with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).

On 9 May 1995 the Warsaw District Court granted the claim and made an order for payment.

On an unspecified date the defendant appealed.

On 26 June 1996 the court stayed the proceedings.

Following a request by the applicant, on 29 January 1997 the court resumed the proceedings.

Subsequently the case lay dormant until 30 September 2002.

On 30 September 2002 the applicant requested the court to reconstruct the case file. He had become aware in the course of another set of proceedings against the member of the management board of the defendant company that the case file was incomplete.

On 25 May 2004, after the proceedings for reconstruction, the Warsaw District Court held that it was not possible to reconstruct the file and decided to continue the main proceedings for payment on the basis of the case file as it stood.

On 22 November 2005 the Warsaw District Court dismissed the defendant's appeal lodged against the order for payment. This decision became final on 6 January 2006.

B. The applicant's complaint under the 2004 Act in relation to the above proceedings

On 22 November 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) 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”). He sought both a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Warsaw District Court had been excessive and just satisfaction.

On 26 January 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court gave a decision in which it acknowledged that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. It found that the Warsaw District Court had remained inactive between April 1997 and September 2002, that is, for the period of five years and six months. At the same time, however, the Warsaw Regional Court refused to grant the applicant any just satisfaction, holding that he had failed to reason his request.

C. Criminal proceedings against the applicant (complaint lodged with the Court on 22 September 2003)

On 17 September 1992 the applicant was arrested and, on 18 September 1992, detained, on suspicion of illegally distributing alcohol and handling stolen goods.

On 6 November 1992 the applicant was released from detention.

On the same day the applicant was placed under police supervision. He had to report to the police station twice a week and could not leave the city without the prosecutor's permission. This preventive measure was quashed by the Warsaw Regional Court in a decision of 1998, six years after its imposition.

On 27 June 1994 the applicant was indicted.

On 18 September 2000 the Warsaw District Court gave judgment, acquitted the applicant of two of the charges, found him guilty of handling stolen goods, and sentenced him to a fine.

On 4 June 2001 the applicant's lawyer appealed against that judgment.

On 30 August 2002 the Warsaw Regional Court quashed the first‑instance judgment and remitted the case to the prosecutor to complete the investigation.

On 28 January 2003 the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor stayed the investigation.

On 19 February 2003 the applicant's lawyer appealed against that decision.

On 7 April 2003 the Warsaw Appellate Prosecutor dismissed the appeal.

On 14 February 2005 the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor discontinued the investigation.

D. The applicant's complaint under the amended 2004 Act in relation to the criminal proceedings

On 21 July 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court that the length of the investigation was excessive. He relied on section 2 of the Act of 20 February 2009 amending the 2004 Act (see paragraph 31 below).

On 21 September 2009 the Warsaw Regional Court gave a decision and refused to examine the complaint. The court found that a complaint under the 2004 Act could be lodged only in respect of pending proceedings and that the criminal proceedings complained of had been terminated on 14 February 2005.

The applicant appealed and apparently his complaint was re‑examined. On 30 November 2009 the Warsaw Regional Court gave a decision in which it acknowledged that the length of the investigation had been excessive and awarded the applicant 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN).