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 } .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 } .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 } .sA3B71503 { width:197.8pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 52504/99 by Franciszek KOWALSKI 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 14 January 1999, Having regard to the parties’ declarations on concluding a friendly settlement, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Franciszek Kowalski, is a Polish national who was born in 1926 and lives in Poznań, Poland. In the proceedings before the Court the applicant was not legally represented. The Polish Government were represented by their Agents, Mr K. Drzewicki and, subsequently, Ms   S. Jaczewska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. On 31 October 1990 the applicant brought a claim against his former employer, the “Pozmeat” company, to the Poznań District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ). He sought reinstatement and payment. On 7 January, 20 February and 30 July 1991 the court held hearings. On 11 October 1991 the District Court found that it was not competent to deal with the claim and referred the case to the Poznań Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzk i). The court dismissed the claim on 29 October 1993. On 14 April 1994 the Poznań Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 8 December 1994 the Ombudsman lodged an extraordinary appeal on behalf of the applicant with the Supreme Court ( Sąd Najwyższy ). On 6 January 1995 the Supreme Court quashed both judgments and remitted the case to the Regional Court. The court held hearings on 26 September 1995, 19 February and 25   March 1996. On 18 February 1997, at the request of the defendant, the court stayed the proceedings. They were resumed on 3 September 1997. Between 15 October 1997 and 9 June 1998 the court held seven hearings. On 23 June 1998 the court again dismissed the claim. On 3 December 1998 the Poznań Court of Appeal remitted the case. The Regional Court held five hearings and obtained an expert report. On 20 February 2001 the court gave judgment and partly granted the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed on 12 March 2001. However, he withdrew his appeal on 5 April 2001 because the parties had concluded a friendly settlement. Consequently, the proceedings were discontinued on 11 April 2001. 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 23 October 2003 the Court received the declaration signed by the applicant which read, in so far as relevant: “I note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me 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. 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....” On 27 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 15,000 Polish zlotys to Mr   Franciszek Kowalski. 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” 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