FIRST SECTION
 
 
 
CASE OF JANULIS v. POLAND
 
(Application no. 31792/15)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
16 January 2020
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Janulis v. Poland,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Armen Harutyunyan, President,
 Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
 Pauliine Koskelo, judges,
and Abel Campos, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 December 2019,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 31792/15) 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 Kamil Janulis (“the applicant”), on 13 May 2015. 2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska and subsequently by Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3. On 6 July 2017 the Government were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1980 and is detained in Kamińsk Prison. Criminal proceedings
5. On 13 November 2012 the applicant was charged with fraud. On 5 September 2012 the applicant was heard as a witness and on 7 December 2012 as a suspect. 6. Between 21 December 2012 and 11 March 2013 the proceeding were stayed as the second suspect charged in the case had been searched by the police. On 20 June 2013 an expert opinion on the applicant’s handwriting requested by the prosecutor was prepared. 7. Afterwards, the investigation was again stayed because the second suspect could not be found. In 2014 the prosecutor was informed that the suspect had left Poland and lived in the United Kingdom. In January 2015 the prosecutor decided to issue an arrest warrant to search for him. 8. On 7 June 2017 the Ostróda District Prosecutor severed charges against the applicant to a separate set of proceedings. 9. On 21 June 2017 the applicant was indicted before the Ostróda District Court. 10. It appears that the trial court held one hearing and on 8 August 2017 it convicted the applicant. He was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment. The applicant did not appeal and the judgment is final. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
11. The applicant lodged five complaints under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaint about breach of the right to have a case examined in an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and in judicial proceedings without undue delay (ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki - “the 2004 Act”). 12. The complaints lodged on 15 October 2013 and 16 December 2014 were dismissed as manifestly ill-founded and two other complaints were rejected as they had been lodged less than twelve months following a previous decision under the 2004 Act. 13. On 28 February 2017 the Elbląg Regional Court partly allowed his last complaint and found that the length of the investigation had been excessive. It awarded the applicant 3,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in compensation (approximately 700 euros (EUR) at the material time). The court considered that for the last few years the actions of the prosecutor had been limited to repeating sporadic requests to various domestic institutions inquiring after the second suspect’s address. Those activities concerned the other suspect and not the applicant. Moreover, between each such action there had been long periods of inactivity. The court also suggested that the prosecutor could have had already in 2014 severed charges against the applicant to a separate set of proceedings which would have allowed him to indict the applicant for the offences which he had allegedly committed. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
14. A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for excessive length of judicial proceedings – in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act – are presented in the Court’s decisions in the cases of Charzyński v. Poland ((dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V) and Ratajczyk v. Poland ((dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005-VIII), and in its judgments in the cases of Krasuski v. Poland (no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V) and, most recently, Rutkowski and Others v. Poland (nos. 72287/10, 13927/11 and 46187/11, §§ 75-107, 7 July 2015). THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
15. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal...”
16. The Government contested that argument. 17. The period to be taken into consideration began on 13 November 2012 and ended on 8 August 2017 (see paragraphs 5 and 10above). It thus lasted 4 years and 9 months for one level of jurisdiction. Admissibility
18. The Government raised a preliminary objection that the applicant can no longer be considered a “victim”, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time. 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). 19. 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. 20. The Court notes that the Elbląg 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 and the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay had been breached and awarded the applicant the equivalent of EUR 700 in respect of the length of the proceedings. The just satisfaction awarded by the Elbląg Regional Court amounts to approximately 27 per cent of what the Court would be likely to have awarded the applicant at that time in accordance with its practice, taking into account the particular circumstances of the case. 21. The Court finds that the redress provided to the applicant at domestic level, considered on the basis of the facts of which he complains before the Court, was insufficient (see Czajka v. Poland, no. 15067/02, § 56, 13 February 2007, and Pastuszenia v. Poland, no. 46074/07, § 37, 21 September 2010). In these circumstances, the argument that the applicant has lost his victim status cannot be upheld. 22. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

Outcome for Article 6: violation