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 } .s51A4CE10 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.75pt; text-align:left } .s424CBD25 { width:22.06pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s36C0C433 { width:16.01pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s70FAF3C6 { width:22.01pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s69BC179A { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sC28F5313 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4AD8A65C { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .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 FINAL DECISION Application no. 75075/01 by Mieczysław KORNECKI 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   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego, judges , and   Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar ,     Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 April 2000, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A. Circumstances of the case The applicant, Mr Mieczysław Kornecki, is a Polish national who lives in Sanok, Poland. On 9   April   1987 the applicant filed with the Sanok District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) an application for distribution of the inheritance left by his parents. Before 1   May   1993 the court held eleven hearings and heard evidence from numerous witnesses. The court also obtained evidence from several experts. On 5   May   1994 the court held a hearing. It ordered that an expert report be prepared and adjourned the hearing. The next hearing was held on 5   January   1995. The court heard evidence from an expert and adjourned the hearing sine die . On 9   May and 24   October   1995 the court held further hearings. On 3   November   1995 the District Court gave a decision ( postanowienie ). The applicant appealed against this decision to the Krosno Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ).On 26   March   1996 the Regional Court set aside the first-instance decision and remitted the case. The District Court held a hearing on 30   May   1996. On 9   December   1996 the court issued an interim order allowing one party to the proceedings to build a bathroom in the apartment. Upon a further appeal, on 12   February   1997, the Krosno Regional Court amended this decision and dismissed the request for the issuing of an interim order. Next hearings were held on 23   April, 16   June, 5   August, 11   December   1997 and 10   February   1998. On 24   February   1998 the District Court gave a final decision. On 25   June   1999, on the applicant’s appeal, the Krosno Regional Court partly amended the first-instance decision. The applicant subsequently lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court ( Sąd Najwyższy ). On 12   January   2000 the Supreme Court dismissed this appeal. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings in his case had exceeded a reasonable time. THE LAW On 14   October   2003 the Court received from the Polish Government a declaration that read, in so far as relevant:   “I declare that, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case, the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 15,000 [approx. 3,300 euros] to Mieczysław Kornecki. 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. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay, until settlement, simple interest on the amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points....” On 22   September   2003 the Court received the declaration signed by the applicant that read, in its relevant part: “I note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN 15,000 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