CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 18 juin 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sAA8DEB86 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s132B84CB { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s3CCA30AE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s4AAEB1A5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0; 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 } .sE256019B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s988562EE { width:30.55pt; display:inline-block } .sE11E0F11 { width:234.12pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 10700/03 by Edward KWIATEK against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 22   May 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Mr   J. Casadevall,   Mr   G. Bonello,   Mr   K. Traja,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi,   Mr   L. Garlicki,   Ms   L. Mijović, judges, and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 March 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 Edward Kwiatek was a Polish national who was born in 1942 and lived in Sosnowiec, Poland. On 8 September 2004 the applicant died. On 22 April 2005 the applicant’s wife, Mrs Lidia Skalmierska-Kwiatek, informed the Registry that she wished to continue the application lodged by her late husband. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. A.     The circumstances of the case 1. Proceedings for the division of inheritance and dissolution of co-ownership On 11 April 1994 the applicant lodged a motion for the division of an inheritance and the dissolution of co-ownership with the Będzin District Court. On 7 May 1998 the Będzin District Court gave a decision. One of the parties to the proceedings appealed. On 19 November 1999 the Katowice Regional Court remitted the case. On 31 July 2003 the Będzin District Court gave a further decision, against which several parties to the proceedings appealed. On 16 September 2004 the Katowice Regional Court gave a final decision. 2. The complaint under the 2004 Act On 7 March 2005 the applicant’s wife filed with the Katowice Court of Appeal a complaint about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and asked for compensation. She explained that her husband had lodged an application concerning the excessive length of the proceedings with the European Court and that she had decided to pursue her length complaint. Although she did not expressly mention 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”), from the circumstances of the case (termination of the proceedings in Poland and an earlier complaint lodged with the European Court) it appeared that Article 18 of the 2004 Act should be applicable. On 11 March 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal severed the applicant’s length complaint and referred the case to the Katowice Regional Court. This decision did not contain any reasoning but, as emerges from further documents, the complaint was referred to the Katowice Regional Court in so far as it concerned the length of proceedings before the District Court. The Katowice Court of Appeal dealt with the remainder of the length complaint. On 14 April 2005 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the complaint, holding that the provisions of the 2004 Act were applicable exclusively to pending proceedings. On 21 June 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal examined the complaint but it referred only to those periods during which the proceedings had been pending before the Katowice Regional Court (periods from 3   December 1998 to 23 December 1998, from 26 February 1999 to 13   January 2000 and from 31 July 2003 to 16 September 2004). The Court of Appeal relied on section 4 of the 2004 Act which provides that   the complaint shall be examined by the court immediately above the court conducting the impugned proceedings. The Court of Appeal found that there had been no periods of inactivity before the Regional Court and that the proceedings had been handled properly. It dismissed the complaint. THE LAW On 25 October 2006 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant’s wife: “I, Lidia Skalmierska Kwiatek, 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 giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.” On 2 April 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Agent of the Government: “I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay 15,000 Polish zlotys (fifteen thousand Polish zlotys) to Mrs Lidia Skalmierska Kwiatek 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.” 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, the application to the case 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 strike the application out of its list of cases.   T.L. Early   N icolas Bratza   Registrar   President