CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 1 juin 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 } .sF50B9DC9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:150pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF33CC11E { margin-top:150pt; 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 } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .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 } .s4FFB5796 { width:198.18pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 65015/01 by Sybilla FUSIARZ against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1   June 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 23 July 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, Sybilla Fusiarz, is a Polish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Opole. She was represented before the Court by Mr Z. Szostak, a lawyer practising in Opole. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 25   February 1994 the Opole Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) gave a divorce decree and dissolved the applicant's marriage with A.F. On 8   August 1994 the applicant filed with the Opole District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) an action for maintenance against her ex-husband. The court held hearings on 10   October   1994, 25   January and 22   February   1995. On 29   April   1996 the applicant modified her claim and asked for a higher amount. In addition, she asked for her claim to be secured. Between 22   January   1995 and 24   February   1999 no hearing was held. On 1   September   1997 the applicant complained to the President of the Opole Regional Court about a delay in the proceedings. On 31   October   1997 the President informed her that in May 1995 the case ‑ file had been sent to an expert but apparently it had never been transmitted to him. Therefore, the President had ordered the President of the Opole District Court to institute ex-officio proceedings leading to the reconstruction of the missing case-file. At the hearing held on 24   February   1999 the applicant modified her claim. On 29   December   1999 the District Court held a hearing and gave judgment. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of civil proceedings in her case. THE LAW On 23   April   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   15,000 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 24   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 15,000 to Mrs   Sybilla Fusiarz. 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 and to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Michael O'Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President