CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 30 novembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sF5B27E79 { width:130.75pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super }       FIRST SECTION CASE OF TRELA AND OTHERS v. POLAND (Applications nos. 25347/19 and 18 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 30 November 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Trela and Others v. Poland, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lətif Hüseynov , President ,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Ivana Jelić , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 9 November 2023, Having regard to the decision to grant the applicant in application no.   60803/21 anonymity under Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Poland lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Polish Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THE APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     In all applications the Government submitted unilateral declarations which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits of the cases (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003-VI). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 AND ARTICLE   13 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained that the length of the criminal proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Article   6 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention. 8.     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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants 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). 9.     In the leading case of Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, 7 July 2015, the Court found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in relation to the length of judicial proceedings. 10.     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. 11.     The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. 12.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Rutkowski and Others, cited above), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out of the list; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of an effective remedy to complain about it; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, 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 amounts 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 30 November 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Lətif Hüseynov   Acting Deputy Registrar   President       APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Domestic decision on complaint under the 2004   Act Domestic award (in Polish zlotys) Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     25347/19 23/11/2019 Janusz TRELA 1963     18/01/1999   pending   More than 24 years, 8   months and 19 days 2 levels of jurisdiction Katowice Court of Appeal, 02/08/2017, case   no.   II   S   35/17, PLN 8,500 15,100     39784/20 27/08/2020 Piotr ORŁOWSKI 1973 Lipski Marcin Gdańsk 30/04/2004   16/12/2020 16 years, 7 months and 17 days 3 levels of jurisdiction Gdańsk Court of Appeal, 19/02/2020, case no. II S 52/19 14,300     44876/20 28/09/2020 Arkadiusz ZAWADZKI 1974 Lipski Marcin Gdańsk 18/04/2014   pending   More than 9 years, 5   months and 22 days 1 level of jurisdiction Gdańsk Court of Appeal, 23/09/2020, case   no.   II   S   23/20 7,800     54827/20 27/11/2020 Piotr ZWIERZYŃSKI 1984     13/05/2014   29/09/2020   6 years, 4 months and 17 days 1 level of jurisdiction Warsaw Regional Court, 25/09/2020, case no. IX S 75/20, PLN 4,000 3,000     2992/21 16/12/2020 Wiktor ZGONDEK 1981     27/05/2014   02/12/2021   7 years, 6 months and 6 days 2 levels of jurisdiction Warsaw Regional Court, 06/10/2020, case no. IX S 17/20, PLN 4,000 3,700     14641/21 04/03/2021 Mieczysław OLSZEWSKI 1957 Koehler Paweł Katowice 03/04/2009   16/09/2020   11 years, 5 months and 14 days 2 levels of jurisdiction Katowice Court of Appeal, 19/03/2019, case no. II S 19/19, PLN 5,000 6,700     14889/21 18/02/2021 Robert PIETRZAK 1982     06/06/2009   pending   More than 14 years, 4   months and 4 days 2 levels of jurisdiction Ostrołęka Regional Court, 03/09/2020, case no. II S 8/20, PLN 4,000 10,800     18901/21 15/03/2021 Sebastian Dariusz JANUCIK 1995     07/05/2014   pending   More than 9 years, 5   months and 3 days 1 level of jurisdiction Warsaw Regional Court, 08/12/2020, case no. X S 141/20 Warsaw Regional Court, 24/02/2021, case no. IX S 3/21, PLN 5,000 6,700     22869/21 13/08/2021 Jan Arkadiusz TASIOR 1983     15/08/2014   pending   More than 9 years, 1   month and 25 days 2 levels of jurisdiction Warsaw Regional Court, 27/02/2020, case no. X S 5/20 Warsaw Court of Appeal, 29/07/2021, case no. II S 44/21 5,200   24656/21 30/04/2021 Krzysztof PRZYSTUPA 1969 Błaszczyk Michał Konrad Lublin 26/08/2011   pending   More than 12 years, 1   month and 14 days 2 levels of jurisdiction Lublin Regional Court 05/11/2020, case no V S 12/20, PLN 8,000 7,400   26959/21 12/07/2021 Karol ZALEWSKI 1992     14/09/2012   pending   More than 11 years and 26 days 1 level of jurisdiction Warsaw Regional Court, 22/04/2021, case no. IX S 18/21, PLN 4,500 9,400   28878/21 25/05/2021 Jacek FIEĆKO 1977     06/09/2016   pending   More than 7 years, 1   month and 4 days 1 level of jurisdiction Gdańsk Court of Appeal, 19/05/2021, case no. II S 43/21 5,200   29447/21 31/05/2021 Adam FEDYCZKOWSKI 1978 Gebauer Beata Bielsko-Biała 30/12/2005   03/12/2020   14 years, 11   months and 4 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   Katowice Court of Appeal, 01/03/2017, case no. II S 8/17, PLN 4,500 Katowice Court of Appeal, 19/11/2019, case no. II S 83/19, PLN 2,000 11,600   40094/21 02/08/2021 Zbigniew KRZYWAKOWSKI 1952 Lipski Marcin Gdańsk 01/12/2008   06/11/2020   11 years, 11 months and 6 days 1 level of jurisdiction Kraków Court of Appeal, 11/02/2021, case no. II S 20/20, PLN 2,000 11,300   44169/21 17/08/2021 Eugeniusz MAJZA 1951     12/06/2007   pending   More than 16 years, 3   month and 28 days 3 levels of jurisdiction Katowice Court of Appeal, 14/11/2018, case no. II S 47/18, PLN 11,000 10,600   60803/21 01/12/2021 P.H. 1983     17/11/2004   25/02/2021   16 years, 3 months and 9 days 2 levels of jurisdiction Lublin Court of Appeal, 19/05/2021, case no. II S 4/21, PLN 8,000 12,600   260/22 27/11/2021 Mateusz MICHALSKI 1992 Cupiał Dawid Warsaw 19/06/2017   pending   More than 6 years, 3   months and 21   days 1 level of jurisdiction Warsaw Regional Court, 28/05/2021, case no. VI S 69/21, PLN 2,000 3,500   1777/22 20/12/2021 Rafał PILICHOWSKI 1993 Cupiał Dawid Warsaw 09/10/2015   pending   More than 8 years and 1 day 1 level of jurisdiction Warsaw-Praga Regional Court, 14/07/2021, case no. VI S 74/21 and VI S 75/21, PLN 3,000 5,900   13169/22 25/02/2022 Maciej PODGÓRSKI 1985 Czarnecki Karol Warszawa 22/02/2017   pending   More than 6 years, 7   months and 18   days 1 level of jurisdiction Wrocław Court of Appeal, 04/10/2021, case no. II S 26/21 5,200   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.