CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 4 décembre 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 } .s82E56A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:2.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:33.15pt } .s818EE120 { width:12.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s145A69D6 { width:34.2pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s50C1001B { width:11.66pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s29FAB82B { width:9.65pt; text-indent:0pt; 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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; 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 } .sB479C018 { width:230.99pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 12260/05 by Janusz SKÓRSKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4   December 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 22 February 2005, 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 Janusz Skórski, is a Polish national who was born in 1970. He is currently detained in the Płock prison. 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 and his detention on remand On 19 November 1998 the applicant took part in an armed attack on the Toruń Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ). It seems that on 27 July 1999 he was indicted before the Toruń District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ). The charges were brought against 10 accused. The first hearing was scheduled for 3 August 1999. Subsequent hearings took place on unspecified dates in October 1999. On 3 November 1999 the applicant was convicted by the Toruń District Court. On 16 March 2001, following the applicant’s appeal, the Bydgoszcz Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment in part and remitted the case. On 14 April 2001 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court sent the case file to the Toruń District Court. At the same time, the part of the first-instance judgment which had been upheld was enforced. On 18 March 2002 the Toruń Regional Prosecutor asked for the transfer of the case to another district, relying on the interests of the administration of justice (“ dobro wymiaru sprawiedliwości” ). On 29 October 2002 the Toruń District Court gave a decision and transmitted the case file to the Supreme Court for a decision. On 31 January 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s   motion and returned the case to the Toruń District Court for examination. The first hearing was scheduled for 27 and 28 May 2003. It seems that 12   hearings took place after that date. It appears that the proceedings are pending; however, the applicant, who has been serving other sentences, has not produced any information concerning this matter. 2.     Proceedings under the 2004 Act On 7 October 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Toruń 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 sędowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). The applicant sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Toruń District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx.   EUR   2,500). On 24 November 2004 the Regional Court gave a decision and confirmed that the proceedings between 1 July 2001 and 3 October 2002 had been lengthy, as no action had been taken to conclude the trial. However, the court did not award any compensation. The court explained inter alia , that the applicant in his complaint had expressed the wish that any award of compensation made should be given to charity and, in the court’s view, he had impliedly indicated that he had not suffered any harm. 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. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings. THE LAW On 16 October 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 10,000 (ten thousand Polish zlotys) to Mr Janusz Skórski 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”. On 22 October 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   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 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”. 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