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 } .s4E8A404A { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s38747C79 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sAB0FFF87 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .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 } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s2C723851 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:10pt } .s97B7A20 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sDB3D064B { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .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 } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s9C57A56F { width:204.47pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 65873/01 by Romuald JURDZIAK 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 29 March 2000, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Romuald Jurdziak, is a Polish national who was born in 1938 and lives in Poznań, Poland. On 23 December 1985 he sued the “Polservice” company before the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ), seeking payment. On 19 November 1986 the court partly allowed the applicant’s claim. On 22 May 1987 the Supreme Court ( Sąd Najwyższy ) remitted the case. Between August 1987 and March 1994 the Regional Court listed several hearings but most of them were adjourned. On 24 March 1994 the court gave judgment. On 8 December 1994 the Warsaw Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) remitted the case. The Regional Court scheduled hearings for 10 December 1996, 18   September and 4 December 1997; and 5 February 1998, 26 August and 19   October 1999. Several of them were adjourned. On 16 November 1999 the court granted the applicant’s claim. COMPLAINT The applicant 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 [Note1] the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal....” On 7 August 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 10,000 Polish zlotys to Mr   Romuald Jurdziak. 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:] Sylwia Jaczewska, Agent of the Government of Poland” On 23 August 2003 the Court received the declaration signed by the applicant that read, in so far as relevant: “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....” 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 [Note1]   For civil proceedings.