CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 27 mars 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 } .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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .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 } .s25F5CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .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. 24793/05 by Stanisław PESTA against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27   March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Stanislav Pavlovschi,   Ljiljana Mijović,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ján Šikuta,   Päivi Hirvelä, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 June 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 Stanisław Pesta, is a Polish national who was born in 1929 and lives in Jelenia Góra. 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.     Facts prior 1   May   1993 On 6 May 1991 the applicant was charged with several counts of fraud, theft and misconduct in office. On 14 June 1991 the applicant was indicted before the Jelenia Góra District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ). The bill of indictment comprised charges of fraud and misconduct in office against 9 accused. From 22 November 1991 to 20 April 1993 the Jelenia Góra District Court scheduled 23 hearings, 6 of which were adjourned. 2.     Facts after 30 April 1993 From 17 May 1993 to 20 December 1996 the Jelenia Gora District Court scheduled 46 hearings, 7 of which were adjourned. The hearings had to be postponed due to the absence of witnesses, the illness of one of the defendants, the illness of an expert and, on two occasions, at the applicant’s request (on account of his state of health and his stay at a sanatorium). The   court heard evidence from 81 witnesses. At a hearing on 30 December 1996 the Jelenia Góra District Court gave judgment. The applicant appealed. On 27 July 1997 the applicant was served with the court’s statement of reasons. On 20 February 1998 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) partly quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. Between 14 July 1998 and 15 November 2004 the Jelenia Gora District Court scheduled 10 hearings, 4 of which were adjourned. On four occasions the court ordered evidence from experts to be taken. On 13 January 2005 the Jelenia Góra District Court discontinued the proceedings against the applicant due to the expiry of the limitation period ( przedawnienie karalnosci ). 3.     The applicant’s complaint under the 2004 Act On 29 December 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Jelenia Góra 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 sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). The applicant sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Jelenia Góra District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN). On 17 February 2005 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court gave a decision in which it acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings before the Jelenia Góra District Court, finding that there had been a period of unjustified inactivity from January 1995 to January 1996 and from June   1998 to December 2004. However, the court did not grant any just satisfaction to the applicant. It held that the applicant failed to prove that he had suffered any damage to his health resulting from the stress of the proceedings or that he had incurred any pecuniary loss on account of the length of the proceedings. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, 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 that the length of the criminal proceedings in his case had been excessive. THE LAW On 3 January 2008 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   18,000 (eighteen 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. 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 9 January 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:   “I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 18,000 (eighteen thousand Polish zlotys) to Mr Stanisław Pesta 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). 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