CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 2 décembre 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 } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; 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 } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s74A8C447 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:48pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sC7633A56 { margin-top:48pt; 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 } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; 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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4AD8A65C { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA839E164 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; 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 } .sA13580DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; 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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sA4E595F3 { width:160.78pt; display:inline-block } .sDEA786DA { width:210.67pt; 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. 75100/01 by Zbigniew KRYNICKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2   December 2003 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 Mrs F. Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar , [Note1] Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 January 2001, Having regard to the decision to apply the procedure under Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, Having regard to the parties’ declarations on concluding a friendly settlement, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Strzelce Opolskie, Poland. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 7   April   1995 the applicant filed a claim for damages against Cieszyn Prison with the Bielsko Biała Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ). He claimed that he had suffered from tuberculosis because of inadequate treatment in prison. The trial court held a hearing on 13   June 1995. On 9   November 1995 an expert submitted his report. On 7   February   1996 the Regional Court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed. On 21   June   1996 the Katowice Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. Between 4   October 1996 and 4   March   1999 the Bielsko Biała Regional Court held 15   hearings. On 6   March   2000 the Regional Court held a hearing and gave judgment. It dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed. On 21   September   2000 the Katowice Court of Appeal quashed the above judgment and remitted the case. From 21   September   2000 to 8   May 2001 no hearing was held. The trial court held further hearings on 7   June and 13   September 2001. On 18   April   2002 the Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant appealed. On 28   February   2003 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It appears that the judgment is final. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings in his case had exceeded a reasonable time. THE LAW On 5   November   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 10,000 to Mr Zbigniew Krynicki. 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 23   October   2003 the Court received a 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 10,000 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.   Françoise Elens-Passos   Nicolas Bratza Deputy Registrar   President [Note1]   To be checked. If changes take place, either type in or remove names as necessary or launch template DE0.9 and insert the correct list.