CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 15 janvier 2008

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD46FFE5D { width:8.66pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB12058F2 { width:8.11pt; text-indent:0pt; 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 } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF8DCB537 { width:16.53pt; display:inline-block } .s25347E17 { width:182.43pt; 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. 10506/05 by Dariusz TARASIEWICZ and Alicja RYZYŃSKA-GALICZ against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 15   January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Giovanni Bonello,   Kristaq Traja,   Lech Garlicki,   Ljiljana Mijović,   Ján Šikuta,   Päivi Hirvelä, judges,   Lawrence Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 March 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 applicants, Mr Dariusz Tarasiewicz and Ms Alicja Ryżyńska-Galicz, are Polish nationals who were born in 1955 and 1967, respectively, and live in Białystok. They were represented before the Court by Ms Zofia Daniszewska-Dek, a lawyer practising in Białystok. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr J.Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A.     The circumstances of the case 1.   Criminal proceedings   The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On an unspecified date in 1994 the court bailiff informed the Białystok District Prosecutor that the applicants had committed fraud. On an unspecified later date in 1994 the prosecutor instituted investigations. On 20 February 1997 the prosecutor closed the investigations. On 27   June 1997 a bill of indictment against the applicants was lodged with the Bialystok District Court. On 4 February 1998 the case was remitted to the prosecution, the court finding that the bill of indictment was flawed. On 29   October 1998 a new bill of indictment was lodged with the court. Hearings were held on 10 June, 18 August, 4 October and 17   November 1999, 21   April 2000 and 10   May 2001. On 10   May 2001 the court stayed the proceedings as the court summonses had not been properly served on the first applicant who had changed his address. On 6 December 2001 the first applicant was arrested and remanded in custody. At a hearing on 11 February 2002 the court, having regard to the fact that a long time had elapsed since the beginning of the judicial proceedings, ordered that the proceedings be conducted anew. On 24 May 2002 the court decided that the proceedings, which had been stayed by the above-mentioned decision of 10   May 2001, should be resumed. On 13 June 2002 the court again decided that the proceedings should be conducted anew. Hearings were held on 13 June, 21 August, 17   September, 6   and 27   November 2002, 15 January, 3 March, 3 April 2003, 18 April, 23   May, 10 July, 18   September, 27 October and 17   December 2003. On 19 December 2003 the Białystok District Court found the applicants guilty of fraud and sentenced them to 2 years’ imprisonment, the enforcement of the sentence being stayed for a probationary period of 5   years. On 15 July 2004 the Białystok Court of Appeal allowed the second applicant’s and the prosecution’s appeals, quashed the judgment and remitted the case for re-examination on account of numerous procedural and substantive shortcomings in the trial. On 30 December 2004 the Białystok District Court found the applicants guilty of one count of fraud, sentenced them to 2 years’ imprisonment, the enforcement of the sentence being stayed for a probationary period of 5   years. Both applicants and the prosecutor appealed. On 21 April 2004 the Białystok Court of Appeal allowed the second applicant’s and the prosecution’s appeals, quashed the judgment and remitted the case for re ‑ examination. On 12 April 2006 the Białystok District Court found the applicants guilty of one count of fraud, sentenced them to 2 years’ imprisonment, the enforcement of the sentence being stayed for a probationary period of 5   years. It also imposed fines on the applicants. Both applicants appealed. On 28 November 2006 the Białystok Court of Appeal dismissed their appeals and upheld the contested judgment.   2.     Complaint under the 2004   Act a.   The first applicant On 21 October 2004 the first applicant lodged with the Białystok Regional Court a complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings under the Law of 17   June   2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (“the 2004   Act”). He claimed payment of PLN   10,000 as just satisfaction. On 17 November 2004 the court found that the length of the proceedings examined since the date on which the first bill of indictment had been lodged with the court had been excessive, awarded the applicant PLN   1,000 and dismissed the remainder of his claim.   b.   The second applicant On 23 December 2004 the second applicant lodged with the Białystok Regional Court a complaint under the 2004 Act about the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings. She claimed payment of PLN   10,000 as just satisfaction. On 9 February 2004 the court found that the length of the proceedings examined since the date on which the first bill of indictment had been lodged with the court had been excessive, awarded the applicant PLN   2,000 and dismissed the remainder of her claim. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings in their case had been excessively long. They also complained, invoking Article 13 of the Convention, that the remedy which they had had at their disposal in respect of the length of the proceedings was not effective. When examining this remedy, the courts had failed to take into consideration the entire length of the proceedings. As a result, very small amounts of just satisfaction were awarded, which was not in conformity with the criteria used by the Court. THE LAW On 17 December 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Government, signed by their Agent: “I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay 6,000 [1] PLN to Mr Dariusz Tarasiewicz and PLN 8,000 [2] to Ms Alicja Ryżyńska-Galicz with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights. These sums, which are to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. They 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 these sums 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 2 January 2008 Court received the following declaration signed by both applicants: “I note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay PLN 6,000 to Mr Dariusz Tarasiewicz and PLN 8,000 to Ms Alicja Ryżyńska-Galicz with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above ‑ mentioned cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights. These sums, which are to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. They 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 these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, 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). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list.   For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Lawrence Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President     [1] Approximately EUR 1, 680 [2] Approximately 2,400