FIRST SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 19447\/12
\nJacekZALEWSKI
\nagainst Poland<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on6\u00a0November 2018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Ksenija Turkovi\u0107, President,
\nKrzysztof Wojtyczek,
\nArmen Harutyunyan, judges,
\nandAbel Campos, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 March 2012,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Mr Jacek Zalewski, is a Polish national, who was born in 1977 and is detained in Koronowo.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Polish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, and subsequently by\u00a0Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Criminal proceedings against the applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 6 March 2008 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 August 2009 the applicant was indicted before the P\u0142ock Regional Court. The bill of indictment was directed against twelve co\u2011accused charged with over ninety offences in total. The applicant was charged with fourteen counts of, inter alia, robberies, assaults, burglaries, and with drug dealing when acting in an organised criminal gang.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The P\u0142ock Regional Court held in total about 60 hearings during which it heard almost 200 witnesses. On 21 July 2011 the trial court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to six years\u2019 imprisonment. The reasoned judgment against the applicant and fifteen accused was almost 300\u00a0pages long.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant appealed against the judgment.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 November 2012 the P\u0142ock Court of Appeal partly upheld the judgment and partly amended it. The judgment is final.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Proceedings under the 2004 Act<\/strong><\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant lodged a complaint 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\u00a0post\u0119powaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i post\u0119powaniu s\u0105dowym bez nieuzasadnionej zw\u0142oki – \u201cthe 2004 Act\u201d).<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 March 2012 the \u0141\u00f3d\u017a Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint. The court, relying on the Convention principles, considered that taking into account the complexity of the case, the length of the proceedings had not been excessive. The court examined all actions that had been taken by the prosecutor and the courts and found no delay on the part of the authorities.<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of criminal proceedings and about a lack of redress for the excessive length of proceedings.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s first complaint concerned unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant, provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIn the determination of … any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal …\u201d<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0The Government lodged a preliminary objection of an\u00a0abuse\u00a0of a right of individual application under Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. They argued that the applicant had failed to inform the Court of important developments in his case, in particular, of the termination of the proceedings against him on 20 November 2012.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0The Government further submitted that the case should in any event be considered manifestly ill-founded. The proceedings were particularly complex as they concerned twelve co-accused charged with in total some ninety offences. The case file constituted over 100 volumes. The courts dealing with the case were diligent and there were no periods of inactivity attributable to the domestic authorities.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant argued that the proceedings had been lengthy.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The Court does not find it necessary to examine the Government\u2019s objection of abuse of the right to petition, the present case being in any event manifestly ill-founded for the following reasons.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0The 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 (see, among many other authorities, P\u00e9lissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444\/94, \u00a7\u00a067, ECHR\u00a01999-II, and Ku\u015bmierek v. Poland, no. 10675\/02, \u00a7 62, 21 September 2004).<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0The Court firstly notes that the period to be taken into consideration began on 7 March 2008 and ended on 20 November 2012. They have thus lasted four years and nine months at two levels of jurisdiction.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0The Court also notes that there is no appearance that the applicant significantly contributed to the prolongation of the proceedings.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0Considering the nature of the case, the Court accepts the Government\u2019s arguments that it was complex and that the domestic courts dealt with a vast amount of evidence (see paragraph 14 above). The allegations against the accused were very serious and included charges of acting within an organised criminal gang (see paragraph 5 above).<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0As to the conduct of the authorities, the Court observes that the bill of indictment was submitted to the Regional Court on 24 August 2009 and that the first hearing on the merits was held without excessive delay, on 4\u00a0January 2010. Once the trial started the domestic court held an impressive number of hearings without any apparent period of inactivity (see paragraph\u00a06 above). The Court would thus agree with the conclusions of the \u0141\u00f3d\u017a Regional Court, which dismissed the applicant\u2019s complaint under the 2004 Act finding that there had been no delays or periods of inactivity for which the domestic authorities had been responsible (see paragraph\u00a010 above).<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the foregoing, the Court concludes that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Article 13 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant also complained under Article 13 of the Convention, that he had no effective domestic remedy in\u00a0respect of the protracted length of proceedings in his case. Article 13 reads:<\/p>\n \u201cEveryone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the\u00a0violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.\u201d<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested a breach of this provision of the Convention.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 \u00a7 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time. However, the \u201ceffectiveness\u201d of a \u201cremedy\u201d within the meaning of that provision does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see\u00a0Kud\u0142a v. Poland[GC], no. 30210\/96, \u00a7\u00a7 154 et seq., ECHR 2000-XI).<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0While the subsidiarity principle underlying the Convention system requires the Contracting States to introduce a mechanism addressing complaints about the excessive length of proceedings within the national legal system, they are afforded \u2013 subject to compliance with the requirements of the Convention \u2013 some discretion as to the manner in which they provide individuals with the relief required by Article 13 and thus conform to their Convention obligations under that provision.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further reiterates that the word \u201cremedy\u201d within the meaning of Article 13 does not mean a remedy which is bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see, for example,\u0160idlov\u00e1 v. Slovakia, no.\u00a050224\/99, \u00a7 77, 26 September 2006,and Figiel v. Poland (no.\u00a02), no.\u00a038206\/05, \u00a7 33, 16\u00a0September 2008).<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to its finding in respect of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and the fact that the applicant had, and made use of a length complaint under the 2004 Act, the Court concludes that this part of the application is manifestly ill\u2011founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Declares the application inadmissible.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 29 November 2018.<\/p>\n AbelCampos\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ksenija Turkovi\u0107
\nRegistrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n