CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 27 avril 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 } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE27D9C81 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s1F3DC0D4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s4FFB5796 { width:198.18pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 33594/02 by Hanna KWIATKOWSKA and Julianna LEWANDOWSKA against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27   April 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   Mr   M. O'Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 August 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 Hanna Kwiatkowska (“the first applicant”) and Ms   Julianna Lewandowska (“the second applicant”), are Polish nationals who were born in 1956 and 1929 respectively. The first applicant lives in Ostrołęka, Poland and the second in Hollywood, the United States. The Polish Government, were represented by their Agents, Mr K. Drzewicki and, subsequently, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. On 24 June 1949 the Warsaw District Military Court ( Wojskowy Sąd Rejonowy ) convicted a certain F.M., who was the grandfather of the first and the father of the second applicant, of an unspecified offence related to his political activity. On 18 January 1996 the first applicant filed an application with the Ostrołęka Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) for the annulment of her grandfather's conviction under the Law of 23 February 1991 on annulment of convictions whereby persons were persecuted for their activities aimed at achieving independence for Poland (Ustawa o uznaniu za nieważne orzeczeń wydanych wobec osób represjonowanych za działalność na rzecz niepodległego bytu Państwa Polskiego) . On 28 March 1996 the Ostrołęka Regional Court found that the Warsaw Regional Court was competent to deal with the application and referred the case to that court. On 9 May 2002 the Warsaw Regional Court declared the conviction null and void. COMPLAINT The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings. THE LAW The applicants 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, in so far as relevant: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” On 5 December 2003 the Court received the following declaration from the Polish Government that read: “I declare that, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case, the Government of Poland offer to pay 14,000 Polish zlotys to Ms   Hanna Kwiatkowska and Ms Julianna Lewandowska. This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the decision by the Court pursuant to Article   37 § 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. [Signed:] Jakub Wołąsiewicz, Agent of the Government of Poland” On 15 January 2004 the Court received a declaration signed by Ms   Kwiatkowska that read: “We note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay us the sum of 14,000   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. We accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts of this application. We 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 we have reached.” Ms Kwiatkowska also submitted a form of authority signed by Ms   Lewandowska for her representation in the proceedings before the Court. 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Michael O'Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President