CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 19 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 } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; 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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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. 18410/06 by Justyna MATKOWSKA against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19   June 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Ms   L. Mijović ,   Mr   J. Šikuta ,   Mrs   P. Hirvelä, judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 April 2006, 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 regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Justyna Matkowska, is a Polish national who was born in   1979 and lives in Poznań. She was represented before the Court by Mr   R.   Lewicki, a lawyer practising in Gniezno. 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 applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.     Proceedings for defamation and libel brought by the applicant On 22 September 1999 the applicant brought a private prosecution ( prywatny akt oskarżenia ) in the Gniezno District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) against her husband and a member of his family (M.M. and T.M.) The charges related to defamatory remarks made about her in the course of a local television programme as well as libellous statements published in “Gazeta Poznańska”, a local newspaper. The applicant paid the relevant court fees on 11 October 1999. Later, the case was referred to the Poznań District Court. The first hearing before the Poznań District Court was held on 6   March 2002. Since the court had doubts as to its competence, it addressed a question to the Poznań Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ), asking it whether the case should be heard by it or by the Trzcianka District Court. The competence issue was resolved by a decision of 20 March 2002. On 17 July 2002 the first hearing on the merits was held. The court adjourned it due to the absence of one of the defendants. Between 10 October 2002 and 21 July 2005 the District Court scheduled 22 hearings but most of them were adjourned or cancelled for various reasons. On 12 October 2005 the Poznań District Court discontinued the proceedings against both defendants, as the statutory period of limitation for imposing a sentence had expired. B.     The applicant’s complaint under the 2004 Act On 14 December 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Poznań Regional Court under section 5 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”). The applicant sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Poznań District Court had been excessive. She asked for an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN). On 2 February 2005 the Poznań Regional Court dismissed her complaint. The court examined only the course of the proceedings after 30   March   2002, when the case was finally allocated to the Poznań District Court. No delays on the part of the District Court were found. As a result, the court stated that during this period the District Court had not violated the applicant’s right to have her case heard within a reasonable time. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings. THE LAW On 29 May 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I, Justyna Matkowska, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN   10,000 (ten 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 free of any taxes that might 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 giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.” On 31 May 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the Agent of the respondent Government: “I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN   10,000 (ten thousand Polish zlotys) to Ms   Justyna Matkowska 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 might 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 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