CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 13 novembre 2003

.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 } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; 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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .s49544638 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:10pt } .s2C723851 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sE5DF67E2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:10pt } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF5D7A07A { width:224.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 53019/99 by Anna KRUG and Maria KRUG-CUPRYŚ against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13   November 2003 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   M. Pellonpää , 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 regard to the above application lodged on 20 January 1999, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Ms Anna Krug and Ms Maria Krug-Cupryś, are Polish nationals who were born in 1943 and 1947 respectively. Ms Krug lives in Kraków, Poland, Ms Krug-Cupryś in Scarborough, Canada. On an unspecified date in 1991 the applicants’ mother sued W.K. before Łódź Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ), seeking payment. From the date of lodgement of the claim to 14 January 1993 the court held 3 hearings. On 21 April 1994 the proceedings were stayed because the applicants’ mother died. The applicants continued the proceedings in their late mother’s stead. The proceedings were resumed at the applicants’ request on 23   February 1995. The court held hearings on 19 November 1996 and 30 October 1997. At the hearing on 16 November 1998 the court referred the case to the Łódź District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ), in order to join it with another case that concerned division of property. On 20 May 1999 the District Court held a hearing. The proceedings are pending. COMPLAINT The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings. THE LAW The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article   6   § 1 of the Convention. That provision reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal....” On 19 July 2003 the Court received the declaration signed by the applicants that read, in so far as relevant: “We note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay us the sum of 15,000   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. We accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts of this application. We 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 we have reached....” On 16 July 2003 the Court received the declaration from the Polish Government which, in its relevant part, read: “I declare that, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case, the Government of Poland offer to pay 15,000 Polish zlotys to Anna Krug and Maria Krug-Cupryś. This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable within three months.... This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.... [Signed:] Krzysztof Drzewicki, Agent of the Government of Poland” On 19 July 2003 the Court received the declaration signed by the applicants that read, in so far as relevant: “We note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay us the sum of 15,000   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. We accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts of this application. We 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 we have reached....” 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 application to the case of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued and the case 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   Matti Pellonpää   Registrar   President