CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 17 octobre 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 } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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. 64205/01 by Rafał WIŚNIEWSKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17   October 2006 as a Chamber composed of: Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mr   K. Traja ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Ms   L. Mijović ,   Mr   J. Šikuta, judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 29   February 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 observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Rafał   Wiśniewski, is a Polish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Warsaw, Poland. The Polish Government (“the   Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   Jakub   Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In August 1994 the applicant’s father abandoned his family taking all the savings and the major part of the joint property of the spouses with him. 1.     The first set of proceedings On 18   October 1994 the applicant’s mother, on behalf of her minor children, lodged a motion with the Warsaw Regional Court claiming alimony from her husband. On 12   December 1995 the Warsaw Regional Court stayed the alimony proceedings pending the termination of the divorce proceedings. In his letters of 23   November 1998, 11   January 1999 and 8   February 1999 the applicant requested the Warsaw Regional Court to resume the proceedings. On 25   May 1999 the proceedings were resumed. On 12   July 2002 the Regional Court gave judgment. Upon the applicant’s further appeal the Warsaw Court of Appeal gave judgment on 13   November 2003. The applicant subsequently filed a complaint under the 2004   Act alleging a breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time. On 31   January 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal gave a decision and confirmed that the proceedings had been lengthy. It also granted the applicant just satisfaction in the amount of PLN   2,000. 2.     The second set of proceedings On 19 December 1995 the applicant, who had attained the age of majority on 2   November 1994, lodged another motion for alimony with the Warsaw District Court. On 31   January 1997 the Warsaw District Court gave judgment. Both parties to the proceedings appealed. On 28   May 1997 the Warsaw Regional Court amended the contested judgment. The defendant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court against this judgment. On 5   May 1998 the Supreme Court quashed the contested judgment in part and remitted the case to the lower instance for reconsideration. On 17   November 1998 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article   6 of the Convention about the excessive length of the civil proceedings in his case. THE LAW On 7   September   2006 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I, Rafał Wiśniewski note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN   15,000 (fifteen 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 of this application. I declare that this constitutes a final settlement of the case.” On 15   September   2006 the Court received the following declaration from the Polish Government: “I declare that, the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN   15,000 (fifteen thousand Polish zlotys) to Mr   Rafał Wiśniewski 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 the 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 friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article   37 §   1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article   29 §   3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be 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