CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 14 octobre 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s701081D1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left } .sA427F3F3 { width:21.1pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB3311268 { width:20.63pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s63B06C77 { width:35.3pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9BFD2E70 { width:15.31pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sDC1E97F9 { width:21.31pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA31CEDC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDAD452F3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s19B7B205 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.4pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s4FFB5796 { width:198.18pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block }       FOURTH SECTION             CASE OF PIOTR MAZURKIEWICZ v. POLAND   (Application no. 72662/01)                       JUDGMENT (Friendly settlement)     STRASBOURG   14 October 2003     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Piotr Mazurkiewicz v. Poland, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   M. Fischbach ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Mrs   E. Fura-Sandström, judges , and   Mr   M. O'Boyle , Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 23 September 2003, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 72662/01) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Mr Piotr Mazurkiewicz (“the applicant”), on 22 April 2000. 2.     The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr K.Drzewicki, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     The applicant alleged, in particular, that his right to a “hearing within a reasonable time” had not been respected. 4.     On 21   January   2003 the Court decided to communicate the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. 5.     On 29   July   2003, after an exchange of correspondence, the Registrar suggested to the parties that they should attempt to reach a friendly settlement within the meaning of Article 38 § 1 (b) of the Convention. On 8   August   2003 the Government submitted a formal declaration accepting a friendly settlement of the case. The applicant's declaration was received on 19   August   2003. THE FACTS 6.     The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Stary Lubliniec, Poland. 7.     On 10   October   1994 the applicant filed an application for delimitation of plots of land with the Lubaczów District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ). 8.     On 9   November   1994 the court held the first hearing. Further hearings were held on 29   November, 20   December 1994, 27   November   1995 and 25   April   1996. 9.     On 5   June   1996 the court held an inspection of the site. From 6   March   1997 to 22   June 1999 the court held nine hearings. 10.     During the first-instance proceedings the court heard evidence from three witnesses and obtained reports from two experts. 11.     On 5   November   1999 the Lubaczów District Court held a hearing and delivered judgment. 12.     On 13   December   1999 the applicant appealed. The proceedings were terminated by the judgment of the Przemyśl Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) of 17   February   2000. THE LAW 13.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings in his case had exceeded a reasonable time. A. Admissibility 14.     The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. The Court will therefore declare it admissible. B. Solution reached 15.     On 8   August   2003   the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I declare that, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case, the Government of Poland offer to pay 6,500 zlotys to Mr   Piotr Mazurkiewicz. 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 judgment 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.” 16.     On 19   August   2003 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of 6,500   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.” 17.     The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties (Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court). 18.     Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY 1.     Declares the application admissible; 2.     Decides to strike the case out of the list; 3.     Takes note of the parties' undertaking not to request a rehearing of the case before the Grand Chamber. Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 October 2003, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Michael O'Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President