CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 8 février 2024

.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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; 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 } .sE63AEAD7 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.33pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s722F6344 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3pt; 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 } .sF1F8E4D4 { width:130.09pt; 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 } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     FIRST SECTION CASE OF KORNETA v. POLAND (Application no. 9960/21)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 8 February 2024       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Korneta 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 25 January 2021. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr G. Krajewski, a lawyer practising in Łódź. 3.     The Polish Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4.     The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5.     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 6.     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. 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 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 25,000 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). 9.     The Court notes that the Łódź Regional Court and the Łódź Court of Appeal analysed the course of the impugned proceedings in the light of the criteria which the Court itself applies. The Łódź Court of Appeal 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 5,708   euros (EUR) in respect of compensation for the excessive 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. 10.     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). 11.     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. 12.     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. 13.     The Court further notes that the applicant did not have at his disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. 14.     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 15.     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 sum indicated in the appended table.   FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the application admissible; Holds that this application discloses 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 in that regard; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount 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 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 8 February 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Péter Paczolay   Acting Deputy Registrar   President       APPENDIX Application 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) 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 the complaint under the 2004 Act Domestic award (in Polish zlotys) Amount awarded for non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses (in euros) [1] 9960/21 25/01/2021 Grzegorz KORNETA 1964 Krajewski Gerard Łódź 17/08/1998   14/10/2015   17 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 28 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction   Łódź Court of Appeal, 30/08/2019, case no. I ACa 1260/18, PLN 25,000   Supreme Court, 09/10/2020, case no. II CSK 87/20 12,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.