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 } .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 Application no. 25134/02 by Irena GOŚ 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   G. Bonello ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   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 23 November 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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Irena Goś, is a Polish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Szczecin. She was represented before the Court by Ms I. Mikée, a lawyer practising in Szczecin. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   J.   Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The proceedings concerning the applicant’s benefit In 1985 the applicant had a work-related accident. As a result she suffered from epilepsy and was unfit for work. Since 1986 she has been in receipt of social security benefit. On 3 December 1999 the Gorzów Wielkopolski Social Security Board instituted proceedings concerning the applicant’s eligibility for social security benefit. On 22 December 1999, following the applicant’s examination, the social security board’s doctor found that she was fit for work. Consequently, on 4 January 2000 the Gorzów Wielkopolski Social Security Board decided to stop the payment of the applicant’s unfit-for-work benefit. On 19 January 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision with the Gorzów Wielkopolski Regional Court. On 1 March 2000 the social security board transmitted the applicant’s file to the Regional Court. On 20   October 2000 the court ordered the preparation of a medical report. On 25 January 2001 the applicant submitted her pleadings to the Regional Court and requested the court to accelerate the proceedings. She also requested that the case be transferred to the Szczecin Regional Court as she had moved to Szczecin for the purposes of her medical treatment. That latter request was refused on an unspecified later date. On 29 March 2001 the applicant complained to the President of the Regional Court about the lack of progress in the proceedings. She underlined that as a result of the contested decision she was left with no means to support herself. On 3 April 2001 the President of the Regional Court informed the applicant that the delays in the proceedings were due to the significant volume of social security cases and the small number of experts. On 5   July 2001 two experts carried out the applicant’s examination. They concluded that the applicant was partially unfit for work for a period of three years. Their report was submitted to the court on 10 September 2001. On 4 February 2003 the Gorzów Wielkopolski Regional Court delivered its judgment. It ruled in the applicant’s favour and granted her the benefit sought. Neither party appealed against the judgment. It became final and enforceable on 24 February 2003. 2.     The applicant’s complaint about the length of proceedings On 15 March 2005 the applicant filed with the Szczecin Court of Appeal a complaint about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and asked for compensation. She relied specifically on section 18 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) (“the 2004 Act”) which entered into force on 17   September 2004. However, on 13 April 2005 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s complaint, holding that the provisions of the 2004 Act, including section 18, were applicable exclusively to pending proceedings. The applicant appealed against that decision. However, her appeal was rejected on 11 May 2005. COMPLAINT 1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings. 2. The Court raised of its own motion a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention regarding the effectiveness of the domestic remedy against the excessive length of the proceedings. THE LAW On 5 March 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Agent of the Government: “I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay 10,000 Polish zlotys to Ms   Irena Goś 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.” On 23 April 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay the sum of 10,000 Polish zlotys to Ms   Irena Goś 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 declare that the applicant accepts the proposal and waives 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.” 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, 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