CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 4 mai 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 } .s4E8A404A { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s38747C79 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sAB0FFF87 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; 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. 61435/00 by Stanisław GRODZICKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4   May   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 4 September 1999, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together. Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Stanisław Grodzicki, is a Polish national who was born in 1944 and lives in Bytom, Poland. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 27   July   1994 the applicant sued the Coal Mine “Rozbark” (“the defendant”) in the Bytom District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ), seeking payment of his pension in a higher amount and compensation. On 16   September   1994 the defendant submitted a counterclaim. On 19   September   1994 the court held a hearing. It ordered the applicant to submit a reply to the counterclaim and adjourned the hearing until 11   October   1994. On 26   September   1994 the applicant submitted his reply to the counterclaim. The next hearing was held on 11 October 1994. A hearing listed for 22   November   1994 was cancelled since the applicant was ill. In a letter of 2   December   1994 the applicant informed the court that he was able to attend the hearings. On 28   December   1995 the court ordered an expert to prepare an opinion. On 14   July   1997 the applicant complained to the President of the Bytom Regional Court about the delay in the proceedings. In July 1998 the court again ordered the expert to prepare the opinion. On 10   June   1999 the applicant modified his claim. On 5   July   1999 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice about the delay in the proceedings. The letter was forwarded to the President of the Katowice Regional Court. On 28   January   2000 the President acknowledged that the proceedings were indeed lengthy and ordered that the President of the Bytom District Court would supervise their conduct and make monthly reports on their progress. On 21   January   2000 the District Court ordered another expert to prepare an opinion. The opinion was submitted to the court on 24   March   2000. The hearing listed for 21   December   2000 was adjourned at the applicant's request.   On 5   February   2001 the court secured the claim. The court held hearings on the following dates: 11   October, 18   December and 28   December   2001. On 28   December   2001 the court gave judgment. The applicant appealed. On 8   October   2002 the Katowice Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. It appears that the proceedings are pending before the Katowice District Court. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 §1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings. THE LAW On 26   February   2004 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN   17,000 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.” On 15   March   2004 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 PLN 17,000 to Mr   Stanisław Grodzicki. 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 on Human Rights. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.” 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