The excessive formalism of a court in interpreting a time-limit prevented the accused from gaining access to a court

JUDGMENT 

Witkowski v. Poland 13.12.2018  no. 21497/14)

see here  

SUMMARY 

Request for reasons to be given for a judgment. The Code of Criminal Procedure provided that in order to provide a statement of reasons in the criminal court judgment, the party must make a request within 7 days of its issue. The applicant filed this request one hour before the decision was issued and was therefore rejected. The ECtHR considered the formal interpretation of the national court as formalistic in terms of the time-limit resulting in the loss of the possibility of appeal to an appellate court.

PROVISION 

Article 6 par. 1

PRINCIPAL FACTS 

The applicant, Mariusz Witkowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Wadowice
(Poland).

In this case Mr Witkowski complained of a violation of his right of access to a court. He argued that it
had been impossible for him to appeal against a judgment given against him by the first-instance
court in criminal proceedings in which he had been charged with unlawful disclosure of information
obtained in the performance of his professional duties.

Referring to Article 422 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – which provides that a request for
reasons to be given for a judgment has to be lodged with the court within seven days of delivery of
the judgment – the court refused to examine Mr Witkowski’s request on the grounds that it had
been lodged before the judgment was handed down. Mr Witkowski had lodged his request on
19 March 2013 at 9.40. a.m., whereas the judgment was delivered at 10.45 a.m. the same day.

Mr Witkowski relied on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court).

THE DECISION OF THE COURT 

The Court reiterates its consistent case-law according to which it does not have the task of substituting itself for the domestic courts. The interpretation of legislation determining the conditions for the admissibility of remedies lies primarily with the national authorities. However, it must not prevent applicants from availing themselves of an available remedy. The Court is required to check the compatibility with the Convention of the effects of such an interpretation or application, in particular where it appears that, as a result of these, an applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice. This is particularly true of the courts’ interpretation of rules of a procedural nature such as those setting deadlines for the filing of documents or the lodging of appeals.

As the right of access to the courts is not absolute, it may give rise to implicit limitations because it is by its very nature subject to state regulation, which may vary over time and in the future. space according to the needs and resources of the community and individuals. In developing such regulations, Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation. While it is up to the Court to make a final ruling on compliance with the requirements of the Convention, it does not have the power to substitute for the appreciation of the national authorities another assessment of what might be the best policy in this regard. Nevertheless, the limitations applied can not restrict open access to the individual in a way or to such a point that the law is affected in its very substance. Moreover, they are reconcilable with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention only if they pursue a legitimate aim and if there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim pursued.

Moreover, the Convention aims to protect rights that are not theoretical or illusory, but concrete and effective. This applies in particular to the right of access to the courts, having regard to the prominent place of the right to a fair trial in a democratic society.

The Court reiterates that the rules on the formalities for lodging an appeal are intended to ensure the proper administration of justice and, in particular, respect for the principle of legal certainty. Stakeholders should be able to expect the rules to be enforced. However, the Court has repeatedly held that, while the right to a remedy is, of course, subject to legal conditions, the courts must, by applying procedural rules, avoid both an excess of formality that would breach of procedural fairness, and excessive flexibility which would lead to the elimination of the procedural requirements established by the laws.

The Court notes that the applicant expressly stated in his application filed with the District Court on 19 March 2013 that he asked him to establish the reasons for the judgment of 12 March 2013. It noted that, despite this, the District Court considered that this application concerned the judgment rendered on March 19, 2013.

In this case, the Court observes that the requirement for the applicant to file in the court the request for the establishment of the reasons for the judgment within seven days from the date of its pronouncement was on Article 422 § 1 of the CCP. It sees no reason to doubt the validity of the Government’s argument that this requirement pursued the legitimate aim of the proper administration of justice.

Nevertheless, taking into account the particular circumstances of the present case, namely the applicant’s introduction of the application at issue approximately one hour before the judgment was delivered, the Court questions whether the whose procedural rules relevant to the present case were applied by the domestic courts did not have the effect of depriving the applicant of access to the appellate jurisdiction.

The Court observes in this context that Article 422 § 3 of the CCP expressly mentions only two situations in which the court may refuse to consider the request for the establishment of the reasons for judgment: the one in which the application is filed by an unauthorized person and one in which the application is filed after the expiration of the seven-day period from the date of delivery of the judgment. The PPC does not mention the possibility of a court refusing to consider an application filed before the judgment is rendered. The Court notes in this respect that the interpretation in the present case of the procedural provisions concerning the filing of the application at issue, according to which the court refuses to examine the application filed before the judgment was rendered, had the effect of restricting the applicant’s right to have his case heard by the court of appeal.

The Court notes in this context that the domestic court, referring to the case-law of the Supreme Court on the subject, which was not homogeneous, found that the applicant’s claim of 19 March 2013 was ineffective when, at the time of filing, the judgment concerned had not yet been delivered and he was not even certain that it was. However, it notes that the judgment was delivered on the same day as the applicant’s request for the establishment of the reasons for judgment, and that, in two instances, the domestic courts had no doubt about the existence of the judgment which is the subject of the application in It further notes that the courts interpreted the applicant ‘s request in a favorable manner in that they considered that it was in fact related to the judgment of 19 March 2013.

The Court observes that the above interpretation by national courts of the relevant procedural rules in the present case has had important consequences for the applicant since he was deprived of the opportunity to appeal within a certain period of time. fourteen days from the date on which the judgment of first instance with its reasons is notified to the party to the proceedings.

The Court further notes that the decision of the court of 25 March 2013 refusing to consider the request to establish the reasons for judgment and to notify the applicant with this judgment was notified to the interested party on 15 April 2013. after the expiration of the seven-day period from the date of delivery of the judgment during which a party to the proceedings may appeal without first requesting that the judgment be notified to him with his reasons.

It observes that the Government, relying on the case-law of the Supreme Court, observed that the applicant should have confirmed the request in question or filed a new application of the same type in the deadline provided for this purpose in Article 422 § 1 of the CPP. The Court notes, however, that the decision refusing to examine the said application was notified to the applicant after the expiry of that period and that, until the notification, the applicant could reasonably believe that he had acted in accordance with the rules of procedure. the criminal procedure.

The Court considers that, in this case, the applicant complied with the normally required diligence of a party to the proceedings since he had submitted his request for the establishment of reasons for judgment on the same day that the judgment in accordance with Article 422 § 1 of the CCP.

These elements are sufficient for the Court to conclude that, in this case, the applicant’s right of access to a court has been violated if the interpretation, which is otherwise non-uniform  the regulation on the time required to file the request for establishment of the reasons for judgment applied by the domestic court ceased to serve legal certainty and the good administration of justice and constituted a kind of barrier that prevented the applicant to have his case examined by the appellate court.

Accordingly, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention has been violated in this case.

Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,537 for costs and expenses(echrcaselaw.com editing). 


ECHRCaseLaw
Close Popup

Χρησιμοποιούμε cookies για να σας προσφέρουμε καλύτερη εμπειρία στο διαδίκτυο. Συμφωνώντας, αποδέχεστε τη χρήση των cookies σύμφωνα με την Πολιτική Cookies.

Close Popup
Privacy Settings saved!
Ρυθμίσεις Απορρήτου

Όταν επισκέπτεστε μία ιστοσελίδα, μπορεί να λάβει κάποιες βασικές πληροφορίες από τον browser σας, κατά βάση υπό τη μορφή cookies. Εδώ μπορείτε να ρυθμίσετε τη συγκατάθεσή σας σε όλα αυτά.

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources, so we can measure and improve the performance of our site.

Google Analytics
We track anonymized user information to improve our website.
  • _ga
  • _gid
  • _gat

Απορρίψη όλων των υπηρεσιών
Save
Δέχομαι όλες τις υπηρεσίες