Tomasz ZAGANCZYK v Poland - 4955/09 [2012] ECHR 501 (6 March 2012)

judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75-77, ECHR 2003 VI). The Court recalls that it has already dealt with the institution of Polish assessors from the standpoint of Article 6 of the Convention. In Henryk Urban and Ryszard Urban v. Poland (no. 23614/08, 30 November 2010), its leading judgment on the issue, the Court examined in detail the question of the independence of a “tribunal” composed of an assessor in terms of conformity with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 and found, inter alia , as follows: “ 48. The Constitutional Court considered the status of assessors in its leading judgment of 24 October 2007. It held that section 135 § 1 of the 2001 Act, providing that the Minister of Justice could confer the exercise of judicial powers on assessors, fell short of constitutional requirements because assessors did not enjoy the necessary guarantees of independence, notably vis-à-vis the Minister. The Court notes that in its analysis of the question of the independence of assessors the Constitutional Court referred to the Strasbourg case-law and observed that Article 45 of the Constitution was modelled on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (...). 51. (...) The Court notes that the Constitutional Court’s findings were made in the context of an abstract review of the constitutionality of statutory provisions but, mindful of the principle of subsidiarity, considers that they may be applied to the facts of the present case, having regard to the similarity between the constitutional and the Convention requirements in so far as judicial independence is concerned and the reliance of the Constitutional Court on the relevant jurisprudence of the Court. (...) The important consideration for this Court is that the Constitutional Court found that the manner in which Poland had legislated for the status of assessors was deficient since it lacked the guarantees of independence required under Article 45 § 1 of the Constitution, guarantees which are substantively identical to those under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 52. The Court underlines that the Constitutional Court set aside the regulatory framework governing the institution of assessors as laid down in the 2001 Act. It further stresses that the Constitutional Court did not exclude the possibility that assessors or similar officers could exercise judicial powers provided they had the requisite guarantees of independence (...). The Constitutional Court, referring to international standards, pointed to the variety of possible solutions for allowing adjudication by persons other than judges. In this connection, the Court notes that its task in the present case is not to rule in abstracto on the compatibility with the Convention of the institution of assessors or other similar officers which exist in certain Member States of the Council of Europe, but to examine the manner in which Poland regulated the status of assessors. 53. Having regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that the assessor B. R.-G. lacked the independence required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the reason being that she could have been removed by the Minister of Justice at any time during her term of office and that there were no adequate guarantees protecting her against the arbitrary exercise of that power by the Minister (...). It is not necessary to consider other aspects of the status of assessors since their removability by the executive is sufficient to vitiate the independence of the Lesko District Court which was composed of the assessor B. R.-G.” The first element of the Court’s test in the Henryk Urban and Ryszard Urban judgment concentrated on the institutional deficiency as regards the position of assessors vis-à-vis the Minister of Justice – Prosecutor General. However, in its analysis the Court also had regard to the second element of the test, namely whether the circumstances of a particular case could give rise to legitimate grounds for believing that the Minister of Justice Prosecutor General had taken an interest in the proceedings (see Henryk Urban and Ryszard Urban , cited above, § 56). As regards the issue of just satisfaction, the Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non pecuniary damage which may have been sustained by the applicants (see Henryk Urban and Ryszard Urban , cited above, § 62). Moreover, having regard to the reasons underlying its finding of a violation and to the principle of legal certainty the Court found no grounds which would require it to direct the reopening of the case (see Henryk Urban and Ryszard Urban , cited above, § 56, 63-66). This is the Court’s general approach in assessors’ cases to the issue of just satisfaction unless the existence of specific circumstances is shown in a particular case. Furthermore, in the same judgment the Court found that: “ 67. (...) It is noteworthy that the constitutional and Convention deficiency regarding the status of assessors was remedied by the domestic authorities – which decided to abolish the office of assessor altogether – within the time-frame allotted by the Constitutional Court (...). Having regard to the above, it may be noted that the authorities of the respondent State took the requisite remedial measures in order to address and remedy the deficiency underlying the present case.” As regards costs and expenses, the Court found that there was no justification for awarding legal costs under Article 41 ( Henryk Urban and Ryszard Urban , cited above, § 70). In the present case the Court cannot discern any circumstances which could give rise to an assumption that the Minister of Justice – Prosecutor General may have been taking an interest in the proceedings instituted by the applicant and therefore the issue in the present case is limited to the institutional deficiency regarding the status of assessors. In the circumstances of the present case the Court accepts that the Government are not required to offer any compensation to the applicant in light of the Henryk Urban and Ryszard Urban v. Poland judgment. The Court has carefully examined the terms of the Government’s declaration. It observes that their declaration contains a clear acknowledgment of a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and refers to the adoption of the Law on the National School for the Judiciary and the Prosecution Service which abolished the institution of assessors (see relevant domestic law above). Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the absence of any factors which could distinguish the present case from the Court’s approach in the case of Henryk Urban and Ryszard Urban v. Poland the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application in so far as it concerns the complaint related to the lack of independence of the assessor (Article 37 § 1 (c); see, for the relevant principles Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], cited above). In light of all the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the complaint at issue (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Accordingly, it is appropriate to strike the application out of the list in so far as it concerns the complaint related to the lack of independence of the assessor. B. Length of proceedings The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted relevant remedies provided for by the Polish law. They noted that the applicant had lodged his complaint under section 5 of the 2004 Act after the proceedings in his case had been terminated, whereas this provision stipulated that such complaint “shall be lodged while the proceedings were pending”. The applicant should have therefore lodged a complaint under section 16 of the 2004 Act, which provided that a party which had failed to lodge a complaint under section 5 of the same Act could claim compensation under Article 417 of the Civil Code for the damage which resulted from the unreasonable length of the proceedings after the proceedings on the merits of the case had ended. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to avail himself of that remedy. The applicant did not comment. The Court recalls that it has found both a complaint under section 5 of the 2004 Act and an action for damages under section 16 of the 2004 Act in conjunction with Article 417 of the Civil Code to be effective remedies in respect of grievances of excessive length of judicial proceedings depending on the stage of the domestic proceedings (see, Charzyński v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, § 36-42, ECHR 2005 V; Krasuski v. Poland , no. 61444/00, § 72, ECHR 2005 V (extracts); Krystyna Misiak and Jan Misiak v. Poland , no. 31193/04, § 123, 11 April 2011). The applicant lodged a complaint under section 5 on one occasion in 2008; however, his complaint was rejected as it had been filed belatedly. Subsequently, the applicant had the opportunity to pursue another remedy, but he failed to bring an action for damages under section 16 of the 2004 Act in conjunction with Article 417 of the Civil Code. It follows that the complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. C. Remaining complaints The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that two lay judges had sat in the first-instance court. He also complained about the seconded district court judge sitting in the Regional Court. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols arising from these complaints. It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the complaint concerning the lack of independence of the assessor in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible. Fatoş Aracı David Thór Björgvinsson Deputy Registrar President BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII