Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/12888.02-en-20060131/view/
Timestamp: 2020-07-13 01:54:00
Document Index: 171479689

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 12888', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 51', '§ 1', '§ 37', '§ 2']

KRANC v. POLAND About Project
CASE OF KRANC v. POLAND
(Application no. 12888/02)
In the case of Kranc v. Poland,
1. The case originated in an application (no. 12888/02) 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, Ms Danuta Kranc (“the applicant”), on 28 August 2001.
3. On 24 June 2004 the Court decided to communicate the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings to the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.
4. The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Ciechanów, Poland.
5. On an unspecified date in 1988 a certain T.M. lodged a claim against the applicant with the Rzeszów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). She sought a division of property.
6. On 26 April 1989 the court held a hearing.
7. On 24 January 1992 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. The expert’s report was submitted to the court on 26 May 1992.
8. On 21 April 1993 the court gave judgment.
9. The applicant appealed on 26 June 1993.
10. On 22 April 1994 the Rzeszów Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court.
11. On 6 February 1996 the applicant sent a letter to the court, asking for a hearing date to be set.
12. On 3 October 1997 the court decided that new expert evidence be obtained.
13. The court held hearings on 4 May 1998 and 22 December 2000.
14. On 28 February 2001 the Rzeszów District Court gave judgment.
15. The applicant appealed on 5 April 2001.
16. On 26 June 2001 the Rzeszów Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment.
17. Articles 417 et seq. of the Civil Code (Kodeks cywilny) provide for the State’s liability in tort.
18. Article 418 of the Civil Code, as applicable until 18 December 2001 (see “C. Constitutional Court’s judgment of 4 December 2001 below) provided for the following exception in cases where damage resulted from the issue of a decision or order:
19. On 1 September 2004 the Law of 17 June 2004 on amendments to the Civil Code and other statutes (Ustawa o zmianie ustawy – Kodeks cywilny oraz niektórych innych ustaw) (“the 2004 Amendment”) entered into force. While the relevant amendments have in essence been aimed at enlarging the scope of the State Treasury’s liability for tort under Article 417 of the Civil Code – which included adding a new Article 4171 and the institution of the State’s tortious liability for its omission to enact legislation (the so-called “legislative omission”; “zaniedbanie legislacyjne”) – they are also to be seen in the context of the operation of a new statute introducing remedies for the unreasonable length of judicial proceedings (see paragraphs 38-41 below).
20. However, under the transitional provisions of section 5 of the 2004 Amendment, Article 417 as applicable before 1 September 2004 (see paragraph 34 above) shall apply to all events and legal situations that subsisted before that date.
21. On 4 December 2001 the Constitutional Court (Trybunał Konstytucyjny) dealt with two constitutional complaints in which the applicants challenged the constitutionality of Article 417 and 418 of the Civil Code. They alleged, in particular, that those provisions were incompatible with Articles 64 and 77 § 1 of the Constitution.
22. On 18 December 2001, the date on which the Constitutional Court’s judgment took effect, Article 418 was repealed. The Constitutional Court’s opinion on the consequences of the repeal read, in so far as relevant:
23. On 17 September 2004 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”) entered into force. It lays down various legal means designed to counteract and/or redress the undue length of judicial proceedings.
24. Section 16 refers to proceedings that have been terminated and that do not fall under the transitional provision of section 18 (see paragraph 46 below) in the following terms:
25. Article 442 of the Civil Code sets out limitation periods in respect of various claims based on tort. That provision applies to situations covered by Article 417 of the Civil Code. Article 442, in so far as relevant, reads:
26. Section 18 of the 2004 Act lays down the following transitional rules in relation to the applications already pending before the Court:
29. The period to be taken into consideration began only on 1 May 1993, when the recognition by Poland of the right of individual petition took effect. However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of proceedings at the time.
The period in question ended on 26 June 2001. It thus lasted approximately 8 years and 2 months for 3 levels of jurisdiction.
30. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted remedies available under Polish law. They maintained that since coming into force of the 2004 Act on 17 September 2004 the applicant had the possibility under Article 417 of the Civil Code read together with section 16 of the 2004 Act to lodge a claim for compensation for damages suffered due to the excessive length of proceedings with the Polish civil courts.
31. The applicant contested the Government’s arguments.
32. The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies referred to in Article 35 of the Convention obliges those seeking to bring their case against the State before an international judicial or arbitral organ to use first the remedies provided by the national legal system, thus dispensing States from answering before an international body for their acts before they have had an opportunity to put matters right through their own legal systems. In order to comply with the rule, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see the Aksoy v. Turkey judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, pp. 2275–76, §§ 51–52).
33. The Court has already held that a civil action for compensation provided for by Article 417 of the Civil Code read together with section 16 of the 2004 Act cannot be regarded as an effective remedy if more than three years elapsed between the date of the final decision and the entry into force of the 2004 Act, on 17 September 2004 (see, Ratajczyk v. Poland; (dec), 11215/02, 31 May 2005). In the present case, the proceedings at issue terminated on 26 June 2001, which is more than three years before the relevant provisions became effective. It follows that the limitation period for the State’s liability for a tort set out in Article 442 of the Code Civil had expired before 17 September 2004. The applicant could not therefore avail himself of the remedies relied on by the Government.
38. The applicant further complained that the length of the proceedings complained of had infringed her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
39. The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.
40. Having regard to its finding under Article 6 § 1 (see paragraph 37 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Kroenitz v. Poland, no. 77746/01, § 37, 25 February 2003).
42. The applicant claimed 20,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in respect of pecuniary and 50,000 PLN in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
43. The Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
44. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, it considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards her EUR 2,800 under that head.
45. The applicant did not seek to be reimbursed for any costs and expenses in connection with the proceedings before the Court.
(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 2,800 (two thousand eight hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
KRANC v. POLAND JUDGMENT