CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 10 septembre 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84582066 { width:4.99pt; display:inline-block } .s859E34A4 { width:11.02pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s6F57788 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s324C4492 { width:196.13pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 52466/99 by Bernard SOJKA against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10   September 2002 as a Chamber composed of   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mr   A. Pastor Ridruejo ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki , judges , and   Mr   M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 February 1999, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant was born in 1954. He lives in Konstancin-Jeziorna. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 26 August 1983 the applicant lodged a divorce claim with the Piaseczno District Court. On 12 September 1983 he also lodged a motion with the Warsaw Regional Court, claiming that he was not a biological father of his daughter K.S. By a decision of 27 December 1983 the Piaseczno District Court stayed the divorce proceedings until the termination of the proceeding concerning claim for denial of paternity. Subsequently, in the paternity proceedings, 17 hearings were held from 1984 till 1992.    On 8 May 1992 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 5 August 1992 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this judgement. On 5 July 1995 the applicant’s wife lodged a divorce claim with the Warsaw Regional Court. By a judgement of 10 February 1999 the Warsaw Regional Court dissolved the applicant’s marriage and declared that the applicant should pay maintenance for his daughter K.S.     On 22 February 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal against first-instance judgment. He maintained that the lower court had committed serious errors in the proceedings. By a decision of 7 December 1999 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgement of the 10 February 1999, rejected the divorce action and discontinued the proceedings. THE LAW On 25 April 2002 the Court received the following declaration from the applicant: “I note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of 10,000 Polish zlotys covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts of this application. I declare that this constitutes a final settlement of the case. This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and I have reached. I further undertake not to request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention after delivery of the Court’s judgment.” On 30 May 2002 the Court received from the Polish Government the following declaration: “I declare that, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case, the Government of Poland offer to pay 10,000 (ten thousand) Polish zlotys to Mr Bernard Sojka.   This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the decision by the Court pursuant to the Article 39 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. The Government further undertake not to request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention.” The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties and considers that the matter has been resolved (Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.     Michael O’Boyle   Nicolas   Bratza   Registrar   President