FIRST SECTION
CASE OF KOWALIK v. POLAND
(Application no. 37910/21)
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
8 February 2024
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kowalik v. Poland,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Péter Paczolay, President,
 Gilberto Felici,
 Raffaele Sabato, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 January 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 15 July 2021. 2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
3. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicant complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE  6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
5. The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and that he had no effective remedy in this connection. He relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. 6. The Government raised a preliminary objection that the applicant can no longer be considered, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, a “victim” of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time since he had been awarded 2,000 Polish zlotys (PLN). The Court notes that this issue falls to be determined in the light of the principles established under the Court’s case-law (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69‑107, ECHR 2006‑V, and Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178‑213, ECHR 2006‑V). 7. The applicant disagreed and considered that the award he had obtained domestically had not been satisfactory, taking into account the overall length of the proceedings. 8. The Court notes that the Warsaw-Praga Regional Court analysed the course of the impugned proceedings in the light of the criteria which the Court itself applies. It concluded that there had been delays for which the domestic authorities should be held responsible, that the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay had been breached and awarded him the equivalent of 468 euros (EUR) in respect of the length of the proceedings. The Court finds that the redress provided to the applicant at the domestic level, considered on the basis of the facts of which he complains before the Court, was insufficient (see Janulis v. Poland, no. 31792/15, § 21, 16 January 2020, with further examples). In these circumstances, the argument that the applicant has lost his victim status cannot be upheld. 9. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999‑II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII). 10. In the leading case of Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, 7 July 2015, the Court already found a violation of Article 6 of
the Convention in relation to the excessive length of criminal proceedings. 11. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 12. The Court further notes that the applicant did not have at his disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. 13.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation