CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 22 janvier 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s13F94BE1 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.2pt } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s308FBE0C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s6667B4BF { width:213.78pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }       FOURTH SECTION             CASE OF RUPRECHT v. POLAND   (Application no. 51219/09)               JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   22 January 2013       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ruprecht v. Poland, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Päivi Hirvelä, President,   Ledi Bianku,   Paul Mahoney, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 18 December 2012, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 51219/09) 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 Marek Ruprecht (“the applicant”), on 20 April 2009. 2.     The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz, succeeded by   Ms   J.   Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     On 17 October 2011 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Sztum. A.     Main proceedings 5.     On 7 May 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of homicide and robbery. 6.     On 9 May 1998 the Gdynia District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) remanded him in custody. 7.     On 31   July 2000 the bill of indictment was lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ). The applicant and seven other persons were indicted with homicide, several counts of robbery and various other offences committed in an organised criminal group. 8.     The trial began on 14 December 2000. Between 14 December 2000 and 22 July 2003 the trial court held 64 hearings. 9.     On 29 July 2003 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant as   charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant appealed. 10.     On 16 December 2004 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) quashed this judgment and remitted the case. 11.     On 25 August 2005 the Gdańsk Regional Court severed the charges against the applicant into two separate sets of the proceedings. 12.     In the first set of the proceedings, the Gdańsk Regional Court again convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment on 24 August 2007. The applicant appealed. This judgment was upheld on 19 November 2008 by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal. 13.     In the second set of proceedings, on 15 April 2008 the Gdańsk Regional Court gave judgment and sentenced the applicant to 10 years’ imprisonment. The proceedings were terminated by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal on 5 January 2009. B.     Proceedings under the 2004 Act 14.     On 21 November 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Gdańsk Court of Appeal under 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”). The applicant sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Gdańsk Regional Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN). 15.     On 28 December 2007 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s motion. The court stressed in particular that the proceedings were very complicated and there was a need to obtain evidence from numerous witnesses. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 16.     The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are stated in the Court’s decisions in cases of Charzyński v.   Poland (dec.) , no.   15212/03, §§   12-23, ECHR 2005-V; Ratajczyk v.   Poland (dec.) , no.   11215/02, ECHR 2005-VIII; and the judgment in the case of Krasuski v.   Poland , no. 61444/00, §§   34-46, ECHR   2005-V. THE LAW I.     THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THE APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 37 OF THE CONVENTION 17.     On 22 February 2012 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration similar to that in the case of Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no.   26307/95, ECHR 2003-VI) and informed the Court that they were ready to accept that there had been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as a result of the unreasonable length of criminal proceedings against the applicant. In respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage, the Government proposed to award the applicant PLN 16,000. The Government invited the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The applicant objected to the proposal. 18.     Having studied the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration, the Court finds that the Government have failed to provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case (see Choumakov v Poland (no. 2), no. 55777/08, § 40, 1 February 2011, and Ruprecht v. Poland , no. 39912/06, § 27, 21 February 2012). 19.     This being so, the Court rejects the Government’s request to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention and will accordingly pursue its examination of the admissibility and merits of the case. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 20.     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 ...” 21.     The Government confined themselves to the statements set out in their unilateral declaration. 22.     The period to be taken into consideration began on 7 May 1998 and ended on 5 January 2009. It thus lasted 10 years and eight months. A.     Admissibility 23.     The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 24.     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, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 25.     The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see   Frydlender , cited above). Furthermore, the Court considers that, in dismissing the applicant’s complaint that the proceedings in his/her case exceeded a reasonable time, the Gdansk Court of Appeal failed to apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in the Court’s case-law (see Majewski v. Poland , no. 52690/99, § 36, 11 October 2005). 26.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. 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. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1. III.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 27.     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 28.     The applicant, without specifying any sum, asked to be granted just satisfaction in an amount the Court considered appropriate. 29.     The Government did not express an opinion on the matter. 30.     The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non ‑ pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him 7,000   EUR under that head. B.     Costs and expenses 31.     The applicant did not make any claim for costs and expenses. C.     Default interest 32.     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. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY 1.     Rejects the Government’s request to strike the application out of the list;   2.     Declares the application admissible;   3.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;   4.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 22   January   2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Fatoş Aracı   Päivi Hirvelä Deputy Registrar   President