PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 44581/08) 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 Ziemowit Hermanowicz (“the applicant”), on 11 September 2008.

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

On 12 January 2009 the President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3).

On 16 June 2009 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration and invited the Court to strike out the application, in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The applicant filed an objection.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Krupski Młyn.

A. Main proceedings

On an unspecified date in July 2001 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant.

On 29 July 2002 the applicant was indicted before the Tarnowskie Góry District Court. He was charged with several offences of fraud. The bill of indictment comprised 12 accused.

On 9 September 2002 the case was remitted to the Tarnowskie Góry District Prosecutor.

On 21 October 2002, the court ordered that the applicant undergo a psychiatric examination and that an expert's opinion on his health be prepared. The hearing was adjourned until 31 January 2003.

Between 7 March 2003 and 13 October 2004 the court held nine hearings, four of which were cancelled. The applicant failed to appear at one of these hearings.

During hearings listed for 29 October, 10 and 22 November 2004 witnesses were heard.

On 6 December 2004, upon the request of the applicant's co‑accused's lawyer, the hearing was cancelled.

At hearings, set down for 15 December 2004, 5 January, 2 and 23 February, 14 March, 1 and 22 April 2005, witnesses were heard.

Between 13 May 2005 and 20 December 2006 the court held 17 hearings, six of which were adjourned since witnesses had failed to appear before the court.

The next hearing, scheduled for 22 January 2007, was adjourned as the applicant's co-accused's counsel had not been properly summoned.

The subsequent hearing, scheduled for 9 March 2007, was cancelled due to the judge's illness.

On 2 April 2007, due to the judge's prolonged illness, the case was assigned to another judge.

In consequence the case had to be reheard from the beginning and the first hearing was set down for 28 November 2007.

On 5 October 2007 the case was assigned to a third judge because of the new division of work in the court.

The trial was listed for 12 May 2008.

The proceedings are still pending before the Tarnowskie Góry District Court.

B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act

On 7 February 2008 the applicant filed with the Gliwice Regional Court a complaint about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time in respect of the criminal proceedings instituted against him and asked for just satisfaction. He relied on 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”), which entered into force on 17 September 2004.

On 12 March 2008 the Gliwice Regional Court dismissed his complaint. It limited its examination of the length of the proceedings to the period after the entry into force of the 2004 Act and stressed that the Act could not be applied to the protracted length of court proceedings occurring before that date. Having analysed the conduct of the District Court during the period after the entry into force of the 2004 Act, the Regional Court acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings, finding that there had been a period of unjustified inactivity from 1 March 2007 until 12 March 2008. However, the court did not grant any just satisfaction to the applicant. It held that the applicant had failed to prove that he had suffered any damage or that he had incurred any pecuniary losses on account of the length of the proceedings.