CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 24 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 } .sD7D8E188 { width:28.5pt; display:inline-block } .s6232F3BD { width:13.83pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s45C90C8D { width:14.51pt; display:inline-block } .s9032AC5B { width:12.5pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s5634FB02 { width:31.84pt; display:inline-block } .s9CF333D8 { width:137.78pt; display:inline-block } .sDE8613E { width:14.83pt; display:inline-block } .s38DD214 { width:190.13pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 15327/02 by Marian WIĘCZASZEK against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24   October 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza, President ,   Mr   J. Casadevall,   Mr   M. Pellonpää,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi,   Mr   L. Garlicki,   Ms   L. Mijović,   Mr   J. Šikuta, judges, and Mrs F. Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 May 2001, 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 on 22 August 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Marian Więczaszek, is a Polish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Brzeg. He is represented before the Court by Ms   Krystyna Burska, a lawyer practising in Tyniec Mały. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The application concerns civil enforcement proceedings to which the applicant was a third party. He was the owner of machines which were stored at the debtor’s premises. On 29 March 1999 the bailiff attached the applicant’s machines. On 22   April 2000 the applicant appealed arguing that the attachment was unlawful. On 28 April 2000 the Słupsk District Court rejected his complaint for non-compliance with the prescribed time-limit of seven days for lodging an appeal. In the written grounds for the decision the court referred to the applicant as “the creditor”. It calculated the time-limit from the day on which the minutes of the attachment had been served on him. On 12 May 2000 the applicant appealed, claiming that he was neither a creditor nor even a party to the proceedings and that therefore the minutes had not been served on him at all. On 28 November 2000 the Słupsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It found that the reasoning of the first-instance court was erroneous as the date on which the applicant had learnt about the unlawfulness of the attachment should have been treated as the starting date for the calculation of the time-limit for the lodging of a complaint against the attachment. However, the seven-day time-limit provided for by the law on civil procedure had not in any event been observed. The applicant appealed against this decision, submitting that he had observed the time-limit. He argued that the court had not taken into account that some of the days within the seven-day period had been official holidays which, pursuant to Polish law, should not have been taken into account when calculating the time-limit. On 15 December 2000 the Słupsk Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal as no appeal was available against the contested decision. In a letter of 17 May 2001 the Ombudsman, in reply to the applicant’s complaint, stated that the decision of 28 November 2000 was erroneous in that the court had not taken into account that some of the days within the seven day period were official holidays. It further informed the applicant that there was no remedy available against the decision in question. B.     Events after the case was communicated On 29 March 2006 the Registrar sent a letter to the applicant, informing him that the Court had decided to give notice of his application to the Polish Government. On 23 June 2006 the applicant submitted a letter of authority, appointing a legal representative for the proceedings before the Court.   On 22 August 2006 the Government submitted their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. By a decision of the President of the Section, given on 4 September 2006, the applicant was granted legal aid for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court under the provisions of Chapter X of its Rules. By a letter of 14 September 2006 the applicant’s lawyer informed the Court that the applicant no longer intended to pursue his case. She also submitted a relevant declaration signed by the applicant. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 §1 of the Convention about the unfairness of the proceedings in that the court, when calculating the time-limit for lodging his appeal, had failed to take into account that under Polish law the time-limits set out in the Code of Civil Procedure were interrupted during official holidays. THE LAW Article 37 § 1 in its relevant part, reads: “1.     The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that (a)     the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; .... However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.” In the light of the declaration submitted by the applicant, the Court concludes that he has lost interest in maintaining his application. Furthermore, the Court finds no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine , that would require it to continue the proceedings. In these circumstances, the application 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.   Françoise Elens-Passos   Nicolas Bratza   Deputy Registrar   President