Allegedly excessive length of proceedings
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 27. Under Article 173 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure the court may stay civil proceedings either ex officio or at a party’s request. Article 177 § 1 (1) provides: “1. The court shall ex officio stay the proceedings: (1) if the determination of the case depends on the outcome of other pending civil proceedings;” THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 28. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings in her case had exceeded a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. That provision, in its relevant part, reads: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” 29. The Government contested this. A. Period to be taken into consideration 30. The proceedings began on 5 November 1992, when the applicant brought her action to the Warsaw Regional Court (see paragraph 14 above) but the period to be taken into consideration started on 1 May 1993, the date on which the declaration whereby Poland recognised the right of individual petition for the purposes of former Article 25 of the Convention took effect. The proceedings were terminated on 23 October 2002 (see paragraph 26 above). Their length accordingly amounts to nearly 10 years, of which 9 years, 5 months and 22 days fall within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis. B. Reasonableness of the length of the proceedings 31. The reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and having regard to the criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities, and the importance of what was at stake for the applicant in the litigation (see, for instance, Humen v. Poland [GC], no. 26614/95, § 60, 15 October 1999; and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 1. Complexity of the case 32. The applicant submitted that the case had been complex to some extent. 33. The Government, for their part, maintained that no complicated issues had not been involved in the determination of her claim. 34. The Court, noting that the object of the proceedings was the annulment of an ordinary contract for sale of property and that the determination of the claim did not involve the need to obtain any extensive evidence, considers that the case was not particularly complex. 2. Conduct of the applicant (a) The parties’ arguments 35. The applicant maintained that she had not contributed to the length of the proceedings and stressed that, despite her very old age and the fact that her every appearance before the Regional Court had involved a long and tiring travel, she had attended hearings and given evidence whenever necessary. She had not asked for any unjustified postponement and had never caused any undue delay. 36. The Government argued that the applicant had significantly contributed to the length of the proceedings. They submitted that the applicant, when bringing her claim, had to be aware that its determination depended on the outcome of the earlier proceedings concerning the annulment of the notarial deed of 4 December 1989. Accordingly, the Regional Court could not be held responsible for the initial period of more that 4 years, during which the proceedings had been stayed. 37. The Government further pointed out that the applicant’s lawyer had asked the court not to fix any hearings between 3 and 12 August 1998 and between 7 and 19 September 1998 and contended that the resultant inactivity should be attributed to the applicant. On the other hand, they acknowledged that the defendants’ conduct had also caused delays in the proceedings. (b) The Court’s assessment 38. The Court is not persuaded by the Government’s contention that the applicant caused significant delays in the proceedings. In that context, it notes that the stay of the proceedings did not, as the Government seem to have suggested, result from the dilatory conduct on her part. It originated in the Regional Court ’s decision and, however rational that decision might be, the ensuing delay cannot be attributed to the applicant. The same holds true in respect of the alleged hold-up caused by the fact that – on one occasion only – the applicant’s lawyer asked the court not to set hearing dates during her holiday leave (see paragraph 22 above). Indeed, it does not appear that a one-month gap could have materially prolonged a trial that as a whole lasted nearly 10 years. 3. Conduct of the judicial authorities and what was at stake for the applicant (a) The parties’ arguments 39. The applicant stated that the courts had failed to handle her case with due diligence. In this regard, she referred to the fact that many hearings had been cancelled or adjourned and that there had been long intervals between the hearings. Referring to what was at stake for her in the litigation, the applicant stressed that it had not only concerned her property rights but that it had also involved important emotional and personal matters relating to her determined, albeit futile, efforts to regain her family house that had been unjustifiably taken over by the communist authorities. Also, given her great age and bad health, as well as the considerable inconvenience of travelling at her age from her home in Senec, Slovakia to Warsaw to attend the hearings, the excessive length of the proceedings had put a severe emotional and physical strain on her. 40. The Government considered that the relevant courts had displayed due diligence in handling the applicant’s case. The first-instance proceedings, after having been resumed on 30 September 1997, had been terminated within less than 4 years. It was true that the trial had been postponed several times because of the defendants’ absence. Yet the Regional Court had made efforts to secure their presence before it. For instance, it had on one occasion ordered them to provide a justification for the absence. Furthermore, only delays attributable to the authorities might justify a finding that they were in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement. Since in the present case the parties’ conduct was the main reason for the procrastination of the proceedings, the Polish State could not be held responsible for their length. (b) The Court’s assessment 41. The Court observes that even though the proceedings were stayed for about 4 years and 4 months (see paragraphs 18 and 19 above), this cannot justify the overall length of the time the relevant authorities needed to hear the case which was merely of average complexity. 42. While the respondent State cannot be held responsible for all delays in the proceedings, as, indeed, some hearings were adjourned due to the absence of the applicant’s opponents, the Court finds no satisfactory explanation for the delay of about 1 year that occurred between 2 June 1998 and 23 June 1999 (see paragraphs 19-22 above). Nor does it see any reason why the appellate proceedings lasted 1 year and why the Supreme Court needed yet another year to hear the applicant’s cassation appeal (see paragraphs 24-26). Furthermore, in assessing the conduct of the relevant courts, the Court takes due account of the fact that already on 15 June 2000 the domestic authorities expressly acknowledged that the proceedings had indeed been lengthy and that all the steps taken to accelerate the trial had been to no avail (see paragraph 23 above). 43. Having regard to all the relevant circumstances and, more particularly, to the fact that in view of the applicant’s old age – she was already 71 years old when the litigation started – the Polish courts should have displayed particular diligence in handling her case, the Court concludes that the “reasonable time” requirement was not satisfied. There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 44. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A. Damage 45. The applicant did not claim any pecuniary damage. However, under the head of non-pecuniary damage, she sought an award of 100,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) to compensate for moral damage suffered as a result of the protracted length of the proceedings. 46. The Government considered that the amount claimed was excessive. 47. The Court accepts that the applicant suffered non-pecuniary damage, such as distress and frustration, resulting from the undue prolongation of the proceedings that she brought to the Polish courts. Making its assessment on equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 6,000 under this head. B. Costs and expenses 48. The applicant also claimed PLN 67,350 by way of legal costs and expenses incurred in the domestic court proceedings. In particular, she submitted details of travel expenses. 49. The Government submitted that the amount claimed was excessive. 50. The Court reiterates that to be entitled to an award of costs and expenses under Article 41, the injured party must have incurred them in order to seek, through the domestic legal order, prevention or redress of a violation, to have the same established by the Court or to obtain reparation therefore (see the Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland judgment of 13 July 1983, Series A no. 66, p. 14, § 36). However, it considers that the applicant has not shown that the legal costs and expenses claimed by her were incurred in order to prompt domestic courts to comply with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 (see the Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland cited above, pp. 14-15, § 37). The claim should accordingly be dismissed. C. Default interest 51. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to fair trial) of the Convention in respect of the length of proceedings, having regard more particularly to the fact that in view of the applicant’s old age – she was already 71 years old when the litigation started – the Polish courts should have displayed particular diligence in handling her case.