PROCEDURE

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.

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

On 5 February 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).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1975 and is currently detained at the detention centre in Chełmno.

A. Main proceedings

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

On 18 June 1999 the applicant was indicted before the Świecie District Court (Sąd 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.

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

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

On 1 March 2000 the first hearing took place.

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

The hearing listed for 7 June 2000 was adjourned.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

On 20 January 2009 the Świecie 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

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 in the amount of 15,000 Polish zlotys (PLN).

On 8 July 2008 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. The court found that the Świecie District Court had undertaken the necessary steps to conclude the proceedings. 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.