CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 5 septembre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s11415B97 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:66pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s988562EE { width:30.55pt; display:inline-block } .sCD43AF66 { width:217.12pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 73986/01 by Stanisław CZARNECKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5   September 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Ms   L. Mijović, judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 May 2000, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Stanisław Czarnecki, is a Polish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Skórzewo, Poland. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 29 August 1991 the applicant lodged with the Poznań District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy) a civil action against a certain M.P. for payment of a bill of exchange. On 18 September 1991 the Poznań Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) allowed the action and made an order for payment against the defendant ( nakaz zapłaty ). The latter lodged an objection against it. On 1 September 1992 the Poznań Regional Court held the first hearing. Between 30 September 1993 and 3 September 1998 the trial court held almost 20 hearings and ordered the preparation of expert opinions. Some of the hearings were adjourned due to the absence of the defendant, witnesses or expert witnesses. On 27 October 1998 the court gave judgment in which it dismissed the defendant’s objection. The defendant appealed against the judgment. On 15 December 1999 the Poznań Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) dismissed his appeal. On 22 May 2000 the Court of Appeal rejected the cassation appeal lodged by the defendant as it did not comply with the formal requirements. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the civil proceedings. THE LAW On 6 June 2006 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I, Stanisław Czarnecki, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN   10,000 (ten thousand Polish zlotys) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.” On 20   June 2006 the Court received the following declaration signed by the respondent Government: “I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN   10,000 (ten thousand Polish zlotys) to Mr Stanisław Czarnecki with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above ‑ mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The 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.   T.L. Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President