CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 29 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 } .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 } .sF9B3189B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; 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 } .sF8DCB537 { width:16.53pt; display:inline-block } .sC2C80E1C { width:180.76pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 47727/06 by Ryszard PIEKARCZYK against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29   January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Josep Casadevall,   Giovanni Bonello,   Kristaq Traja,   Stanislav Pavlovschi,   Lech Garlicki,   Ljiljana Mijović, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 November 2006, 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 Ryszard Piekarczyk, is a Polish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Lublin. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Main proceedings On 30 July 1999 the applicant’s former wife, a certain J.P., instituted civil proceedings for payment against him before the Lublin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) . From 29 November 1999 to 29 February 2000 the court held 4 hearings, one of which was adjourned at the applicant’s request. On 20 April and 6 November 2000, 30 April, 28   May, 21   June, 26   July, 24   September, 8   November and 13   December 2001 the court held hearings, four of which were adjourned. On 7 January 2002 the Lublin District Court gave judgment. The parties appealed. On 24 April 2002 the Lublin Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. Moreover, the court acknowledged the delay in the proceedings before the court of first instance and it found that the volume of evidence in the case had been expanded unreasonably. A hearing scheduled for 4   October   2002 was adjourned at the applicant’s request. On 11 March 2003 the court allowed Mrs J.P.’s application for an interim measure. The applicant appealed. On 30   April   2003 the decision of 11 March 2003 was quashed. The hearings scheduled for 16   September   2003 and 16   January   2004 were adjourned. One of them was adjourned at the applicant’s request. On 26 February 2004 the case was referred to the First Civil Division of the Lublin District Court. The plaintiff was ordered to pay court fees. From 18 March 2004 to 6 October 2004 the court dealt with the plaintiff’s motions for exemption from the payment of court fees. The hearings scheduled for 14   February and 11   April   2005 were adjourned at the applicant’s request. At the hearing held on 23 May 2005 the applicant failed to appear. On 3 August 2005 the Lublin District Court gave judgment. The parties appealed. On 11 May 2006 the Lublin Regional Court gave judgment. A cassation appeal was not available. 2.     The applicant’s complaint under the 2004 Act On 5 July 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) 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”). The applicant sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Lublin 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 28 September 2005 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed his complaint. The court acknowledged the delay in the early stages of the proceedings. However, it found that the 2004 Act produced legal effects as from the date of its entry into force (17   September 2004), and that its provisions applied retroactively to all proceedings in which delays had occurred before that date and had not yet been remedied. Consequently, it examined only the course of the proceedings after 26   February   2004, when the case had finally been allocated to the Lublin District Court, First Civil Division. No delays on the part of the District Court were found. As a result, the court held that during this period the court had not infringed the applicant’s right to have his case heard within a reasonable time. COMPLAINTS 1. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings. 2. He further complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings. In particular, he alleged that the courts had wrongly assessed the facts of case. THE LAW On 6 December 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Agent of the Government: “I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay 10,000 Polish zlotys to Mr   Ryszard Piekarczy 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 20 December 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “ I, Ryszard Piekarczyk, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of 10,000 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 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). 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