CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 21 novembre 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 } .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 } .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 } .sE90BF664 { margin-top:24pt; 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 } .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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sC7BB5114 { margin-top:18pt; 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 Application no. 3858/05 by Michał SKÓRZYBÓT against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21   November 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 10 January 2005, 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 Michał Skórzybót, is a Polish national who was born in 1919 and lives in Wroclaw. He is represented before the Court by his son Mr Stanisław Skórzybut. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mr J.   Wołąsiewicz of the Minsitry of Foreign Affairs. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. a) The civil proceedings On 14 April 2001 the applicant and his wife lodged with the Wrocław District Court an action for eviction of their daughter-in-law (married to their son A.S. who had left his family in 1996). On 1 May 2004 the applicant’s wife died. On 20 May 2004 the proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of inheritance proceedings, which were terminated on 20 April 2005. By a judgment of 30 September 2005 the District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim. The plaintiffs appealed. On 18 July 2006 the Wroclaw Regional Court amended the judgment and ordered the eviction of the defendant. b) The proceedings under the 2004 Act On 3 June 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings. On 13 July 2005 the Wroclaw Regional Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that there had been no undue delay in the proceedings between the date of entry into force of the Act on 17   September 2004 and 3   June 2005, when the applicant lodged his complaint. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings in his case. The applicant also complained about alleged unfairness of the civil proceedings, in particular about erroneous assessment of evidence by the domestic courts. Further, the applicant alleged breaches of Articles 5, 8 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by the domestic court in that it prolonged the proceedings deliberately in order to ruin her health. THE LAW On 11 July 2006 the Court decided to communicate the application to the Government. On 24 October 2006 the Court received the following declaration signed, on behalf of the applicant, by his representative: “I, Michał Skórzybót, the applicant, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of 8,000 PLN 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 free of any taxes that may be applicable and 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 resolution of the case.” On 23 October 2006 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I, Jakub Wołąsiewicz, Agent of the Government, declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay 8,000 PLN to Mr Michał Skórzybót 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 free of any taxes that may be applicable and 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 (Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).                         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; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.     T.L. Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President