CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 13 novembre 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 } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s19F1B90A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.05pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sE1E7ECA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.05pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s4169B00E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.15pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s72E23BBE { width:211.78pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 31119/02 by Małgorzata MARCHEL against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13   November 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 Mrs F. Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 November 2000, 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, Mrs Małgorzata Marchel, is a Polish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Sterdyń. 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.     Main proceedings On 27 August 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for the division of matrimonial property before the Sokołów Podlaski District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) . Between 27 August 1996 and 29 January 1998 the District Court held 11   hearings. Only four of them were devoted to hearing evidence. The remaining seven hearings were adjourned for various reasons. On 29 January 1998 the Sokołów Podlaski District Court gave a preliminary decision (postanowienie wstępne) . The applicant’s former husband appealed and, subsequently, undertook a series of procedural steps in order to lodge a cassation appeal. As a result, the proceedings before the District Court lay dormant until 5 July 2001. On 15 November 2000 the applicant complained to the President of the Siedlce Regional Court (Prezes Sądu Okręgowego) about the excessive length of the proceedings. On 6 December 2000 the President replied that the proceedings had indeed lasted too long but that could have been attributable to the behaviour of the applicant’s former husband rather than to the court. However, the President stated that, taking into account that four years had already elapsed since the start of the proceedings, he would “directly supervise” them (objął bezpośrednim nadzorem) . On 23 March 2002 the applicant again complained to the President of the Siedlce Regional Court about the excessive length of the proceedings. On 8 April 2002 the President explained that the length of the proceedings had been caused by numerous motions and requests lodged by the applicant’s former husband and that, on 8 March 2002, he had already been fined for “lodging in bad faith a motion for disqualifying a judge”. On 9 March 2004 the Sokołów Podlaski District Court gave a decision and awarded the whole of the matrimonial property to the applicant’s former husband and ordered him to pay the applicant 168,441 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. EUR 44,000) in 4 instalments. The decision of 9 March 2004 became final. However, the applicant’s former husband did not consider the decision final; he lodged an appeal with the court and submitted several other motions to have the decision amended. On 21 June 2004 the Sokołów Podlaski District Court rejected his appeal as lodged outside the prescribed time-limit. The applicant’s husband appealed (“the second appeal”), but his appeal was again lodged too late. On 29 December 2004 the Siedlce Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) reinstated the time-limit for lodging the second appeal. On 14 July 2005 the second appeal was finally rejected by the Siedlce Regional Court. 2.     Enforcement proceedings On an unspecified date in 2004, the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings against her former husband, who had failed to pay her the first instalment. On 24 November 2004 the Bailiff at the Łuków District Court (Komornik Sądowy przy Sądzie Rejonowym w Łukowie) informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings against her former husband had been ineffective “because over a considerable period of time the debtor had failed to appear at his place of residence”. In 2005 the applicant’s former husband filed several requests and a complaint against the measures taken by the bailiff ( skarga na czynności komornika ). On 9 February 2005 the Łuków District Court referred the case, in so far as it concerned the attachment of the debtor’s salary and his bank accounts, to the Sokołów Podlaski Bailiff and, in this respect, quashed the measures so far undertaken by the Łuków Bailiff. As regards the enforcement directed against the debtor’s movable property, the court refused to refer the case to the Sokołów Podlaski Bailiff. The enforcement proceedings are still pending. 3.     Proceedings concerning complaints about the excessive length of the main proceedings On an unspecified date in 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Siedlce Regional Court under 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”). On 30 November 2004 the Siedlce Regional Court rejected her complaint for a procedural mistake. The court found that the complaint had not contained an explicit request “to declare that the proceedings had been lengthy”. On 5 January 2005 the applicant again lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court under section 18 of the 2004 Act. She sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Pruszków District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction. On 27 January 2005 the Siedlce Regional Court acknowledged that the proceedings had indeed been lengthy and granted the applicant PLN 5,000 (approx. EUR 1,230) in just satisfaction. The court held that the case was not complicated and that the District Court could have conducted the proceedings more speedily. The court also found that it had been unnecessary to hold 22 hearings and, more particularly, to list them and adjourn “without any particular reason” because during most of them no procedural steps had been taken. It further held that it had not been appropriate to give a preliminary decision in this case because it “grossly contributed to the unnecessary prolongation of the proceedings.” The court admitted that the applicant’s former husband’s actions played a part in the prolongation of the proceedings but, nevertheless, it found the District Court responsible for that, holding that the District Court had from the very beginning wrongly conducted the process of obtaining evidence (źle ukierunkował postępowanie dowodowe). The court also found that the applicant had in no way contributed to the length of the proceedings. B.     Relevant domestic law 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. COMPLAINT The applicant complained, without invoking any particular provision of the Convention, about the excessive length of the proceedings in her case. THE LAW On 21 August 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:   “I note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN   14,000 (fourteen thousand Polish zloty) 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 it 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 28 August 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:   “I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 14,000 (fourteen thousand Polish zlotys) to Mrs Małgorzata Marchel 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 it 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.   Fatoş Aracı   Nicolas Bratza Deputy Registrar   President