CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 2 octobre 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 } .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 } .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 } .sB8084949 { width:138.49pt; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s9D5ED0F7 { width:218.78pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 29828/04 by Adam NOWIŃSKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2   October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mr   K. Traja ,   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 1 July 2004, 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 Adam Nowiński, is a Polish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Warsaw. He was represented before the Court by Ms   Monika Gąsiorowska, a lawyer practising in Warszawa. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were 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. 1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant On 25 June 2001 the applicant, a policeman, was detained on remand. He was suspected of participation in an organised criminal group, abuse of his powers and office and bribery. In May 2003 a bill of indictment drawn up on 5 December 2002 was lodged with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) against the applicant and 58   other suspects . Between the date of lodging the indictment and 31 January 2005 no hearing was scheduled. On 24 May 2005 the Warsaw District Court found that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the subject-matter and transmitted the case to another Warsaw District Court. In June and July 2006 the court listed 3 hearings. The case is pending before the District Court. 2. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s complaints about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) 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”). On 13 January 2001 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed his claim finding that the case had been very complicated, as it involved 59   accused and it required more time than “ordinary detention cases”. On 17 July 2006 the applicant lodged a further complaint under section 5 of the 2004 Act. He sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Warsaw District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction of PLN 5,000. On 22 August 2006 the Warsaw Regional Court gave a decision in which it acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings. It found that the case had been transmitted twice from one district court to another district court. It took the District Court 18 months to decide that it could not deal with the subject-matter. The Warsaw Regional Court also found that the delay in the proceedings had been partly due to “sloppy file-keeping” (niechlujne prowadzenie akt) in the District Court. It also found that the District Court had not made “any particular efforts to process the proceedings without undue delay”. At the same time, however, the Regional Court refused to grant the applicant any just satisfaction, holding that it had found “no sufficient reasons to do so.” B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are stated in the Court’s decisions in the cases of Charzyński v. Poland no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V and Ratajczyk v. Poland no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII and the judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland , no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V. COMPLAINTS   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about a violation of his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time. He also invoked Article 13 of the Convention, claiming that the domestic remedy against the excessive length of proceedings had been ineffective. THE LAW On 2 April 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I, Adam Nowiński, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN 10,000 (ten thousand Polish zlotys) [1] 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 3 July 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Agent of the Government: “I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 10,000 (ten thousand Polish zlotys) to Mr Adam Nowiński 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 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 application out of its list of cases.   T.L. Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President   [1] Note for the deliberations: approx. EUR 2,630.