CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 18 septembre 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 } .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 } .s9DAED311 { width:4.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .sAD9CA6D3 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s988562EE { width:30.55pt; display:inline-block } .s9D5ED0F7 { width:218.78pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION FINAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 39814/03 by Wiesława WITER against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18   September 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 4 December 2003, Having regard to the partial decision of 28 November 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Wiesława Witer, is a Polish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Białystok. 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. 1.   The civil proceedings On 1 March 2000 a joint stock company in Gdańsk dismissed 200 employees, including the applicant, of the enterprise MG Stal SA in Bialystok, which the company had bought two years earlier. On 8   March   2000 the applicant lodged an action for compensation with the Białystok District Court. On 14 July 2000 the Białystok District Court decided that it lacked jurisdiction ratione loci and referred the case to the Warsaw District Court. The case file was transferred to the latter court on 22 August 2000. The applicant did not appeal against the decision. The first hearing was scheduled for 27 March 2001, but it was adjourned sine die for unknown reasons. On 31 July 2001 the applicant asked the President of the Warsaw District Court to accelerate the examination of the case. No hearing was scheduled until 1 February 2002. On 26 March 2002 the District Court allowed the applicant’s claim. The defendant company appealed. On 3 July 2002 the case file was transferred to the Regional Court and a hearing in the appeal proceedings was scheduled for 3 March 2003. The hearing was subsequently adjourned until 9 May 2003 as the representative of the defendant company had been requested to submit certain documents. On 14 April 2003 the defendant company was declared bankrupt. On 9 May 2003 a hearing was held. The applicant was informed that the judgment would be delivered on 23 May 2003. However, on 30 May 2003 the court decided to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings. The appellate proceedings remain stayed. 2.   The proceedings under the 2004 Act On 7 December 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint under 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”) with the Warsaw Court of Appeal. On 7 February 2005 the court confirmed that the proceedings had indeed been lengthy. The court considered that an award of PLN   3,000 would be adequate (of which PLN 2,000 should be paid by the District Court and PLN 1,000 – by the Regional Court). It observed that the applicant’s claim to be awarded PLN 10,000 was ill-founded, since the value of her compensation claim in any event did not exceed PLN 10,000, the maximum amount of compensation possible under the 2004 Act. It further noted that both courts had had to deal with significant backlogs, which was an objective obstacle affecting the length of the proceedings. The court did not find any delay that could be imputable to the applicant. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings for compensation against her employer. She argued that other similar claims filed by her co-employees were examined speedily and the plaintiffs received adequate compensation. THE LAW On 14 June 2007 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 8,500 PLN to Ms Wiesława Witer 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.” On 30 May 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I, Wiesława Witer, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of 8,500 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.” The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). 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 remainder of the application out of its list of cases.   T.L. Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President