CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 15 mai 2007

.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 } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s925C5418 { width:8.33pt; 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 } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s20D584F3 { width:28.88pt; display:inline-block } .sC66E01D3 { width:215.45pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 12041/03 by Zbigniew TWARDOWSKI against Poland   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 15   May 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki,   Mrs   L. Mijović,   Mr   J. Šikuta,   Mrs   P. Hirvelä , judges , and   Mr   T.L. Early , Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 April 2003, 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 Zbigniew Twardowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Rozdrażew. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mr J.   Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In December 1999 the applicant had an accident at work. By decisions of 21 July 2000 and 12 February 2001 the Social Insurance Authority granted a temporary occupational disability pension to the applicant for periods of eight and four months, respectively. On 4 June 2001 the Social Insurance Authority ( Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych ) in Ostrów Wielkopolski refused to grant a pension on the ground of occupational disability to the applicant, finding that his condition had improved and that he was fit to work. The applicant appealed, arguing that his condition was still bad, that it had been caused by an occupational accident in 1999 and that a medical opinion of the physician working for the Social Insurance Authority had not been prepared on the basis of his hospital records, documenting his treatment and evolution of his condition. On 5 December 2001 the Kalisz Regional Court, Labour and Social Insurance Division, dismissed the applicant’s appeal, relying on medical expert opinions prepared for the purpose of the proceedings by two teams of medical experts. The applicant appealed, arguing that the court had failed to establish the facts of the case correctly and that it had uncritically accepted the conclusions of the medical expert opinions. On 5 November 2002 the Łódź Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 5 December 2002 the applicant, having been served with the written grounds of that judgment, requested the Łódź Court of Appeal to grant him legal aid for the purpose of instituting cassation proceedings. He referred to his difficult financial situation. He indicated that his wife, raising a small child, was in receipt of a monthly family benefit in the amount of PLN   350 while he had been working in an enterprise employing disabled people, with a monthly salary of PLN 1,100. They had one 16-month-old child and did not have any property or savings. The applicant was following a course of treatment, the monthly cost of which was PLN 200. By a decision of 21 December 2002 the Łódź Court of Appeal, by way of an interlocutory decision, dismissed the applicant’s legal aid request for the purpose of instituting the cassation proceedings without giving written reasons for its decision. COMPLAINT The applicant complained that the unreasoned refusal of the second ‑ instance court to grant him legal aid in connection with the preparation of a cassation appeal against the judgment of the appellate court had infringed his right to a fair hearing. THE LAW On 26 March 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I, Zbigniew Twardowski, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) 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 converted into zlotys at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It 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. 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 13   April 2007 the Court received the following declaration, signed by the Agent of the Government: “I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to Mr Zbigniew Twardowski 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 converted into zlotys at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It 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 (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 strike the application out of its list of cases.   T. L. Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President