CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 16 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 } .s701081D1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCD369DB { width:21.33pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; 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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .sB9943C9D { width:194.47pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 5696/02 by Krzysztof KARDZIS against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 16   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   Mr   M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 January 2002, Having regard to the parties’ declarations on concluding a friendly settlement, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Krzysztof Kardzis, is a Polish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Gdańsk, Poland. In the proceedings before the Court the applicant was represented by Ms A. Lachowska, a lawyer practising in Warsaw, Poland. The Polish Government were represented by their Agents, Mr K. Drzewicki and, subsequently, Ms S. Jaczewska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. On 31 December 1991 the applicant lodged a claim against his former employer with the Warsaw District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ). He sought payment of his remuneration. On 10 March 1992 the court joined the applicant’s claim with several similar claims for payment against the defendant. It also found that it was not competent to deal with the case and referred it to the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ). The Regional Court referred the case back to the District Court on 8   April 1992. The court held a number of hearings, of which several were adjourned. On 25 October 2000 the court gave judgment and partly granted the applicant’s claim. The defendant lodged an appeal with the Warsaw Regional Court. On 28 September 2001 the court dismissed the appeal. 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 the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” On 14 October 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 16,000 Polish zlotys to Mr   Krzysztof Kardzis. 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 20 October 2003 the Court received the declaration signed by the applicant’s representative which read, in so far as relevant: “I note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay to Mr Krzysztof Kardzis the sum of 16,000 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 declare that Mr Krzysztof Kardzis waives 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   Nicolas bratza   Registrar   President