CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 27 janvier 2004

.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 } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .s1E56514F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sC82E48BB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s13AE4180 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:24pt; font-size:14pt } .sAC135DF5 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .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 } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s97B7A20 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sA76511A4 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sA4E595F3 { width:160.78pt; display:inline-block } .sDEA786DA { width:210.67pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION FINAL DECISION Application no. 34824/02 by Małgorzata WOJDALSKA and Adam WOJDALSKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27   January 2004 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego , judges , and Mrs F. Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 September 2002, Having regard to the decision to apply the procedure under Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Ms Małgorzata Wojdalska and her son Mr Adam Wojdalski, are Polish nationals living in Łódź, Poland. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. By a judgment of 2 August of 1989 the Łódź District Court convicted the applicants of handling stolen goods and sentenced the first applicant to two years imprisonment and the second applicant to two years and nine month imprisonment. The court stayed the execution of the sentence in respect of the first applicant. Some pieces of evidence against the applicants, mainly jewellery, which had been found in the applicants’ apartment, was secured by the police and deposited with the court. The applicants appealed against this judgment. By a judgment of 9 November 1989 the Łódź Regional Court amended the contested judgment and changed the legal qualification of the offence. As a result, certain jewellery remained deposited with the court and some other pieces were returned to the applicants. On 8 December 1989 the applicants lodged a civil action with the Łódź Regional Court against the Łódź Regional Police Office, claiming that certain objects be returned to them. They also claimed compensation. The applicants subsequently lodged several complaints with the Łodź Regional Court about the lack of progress in the proceedings. On 25 May 2001 the Łódź Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ claim. The applicants appealed. By a judgment of 18 January 2002 the Łodź Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal and upheld the contested judgment. On an unspecified later date the applicants requested the court to grant them an exemption from the court fees in the cassation proceedings. By a decision of 23 April 2002 the Łódź Court of Appeal dismissed their request. By a decision of 4 June 2002 the Łódź Regional Court rejected the applicants’ cassation appeal as not complying with the applicable procedural provisions of Polish law.   COMPLAINT The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings have exceeded a reasonable time. THE LAW On 6 November 2003 the Court received the following declaration from the applicants: “We note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay us the sum of 15.000 PLN 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. We accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts of this application. We declare that this payment constitutes a final resolution of the case. This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and we have reached. We further undertake not to request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1of the Convention after delivery of the Court’s judgment.”   On 7 November 2003 the Court received the following declaration from the Polish Government: “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 PLN to Ms Małgorzata Wojdalska and Mr Adam Wojdalski. This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and will be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the judgment by the Court pursuant to the Article 39 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. The Government further undertake not to request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention. ” 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