CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 20 mai 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 } .s6D3E98A { width:13.59pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 18546/05 by Krzysztof NEUGEBAUER against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 20   May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza , President ,       Lech Garlicki,   Giovanni Bonello,   Ljiljana Mijović,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ledi Bianku,   Mihai Poalelungi, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 July 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 Krzysztof Neugebauer, is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Opole. 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 6 December 2001 the applicant was indicted before the Opole District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) for evading the compulsory military service. The first hearing was held on 9   January 2004. On 17 June 2004 the Opole District Court gave a summary judgment ( wyrok nakazowy ). On 25 June 2004 the applicant lodged an objection ( sprzeciw ) against it. In consequence, the Opole District Court scheduled a new hearing for 7   September   2004. Between 28   October   2004 and 22   March   2005 the court held four hearings. On 17 May 2005 the Opole District Court gave judgment. The applicant appealed. On 28 September 2005 the Opole Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) quashed the first instance judgment and discontinued the proceedings. It decided that the applicant’s offence represented “a slight degree of danger to society” ( znikomy stopień społecznej szkodliwości ). 2.     The applicant’s complaint under the 2004 Act On 14 February 2005 the applicant lodged with the Opole Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) a complaint under section 5 of the Law on 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”) which entered into force on 17   September   2004. The applicant sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Opole District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 5,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 1,250 euros (EUR)). On 8 March 2005 the court dismissed his complaint. Although it acknowledged that the proceedings had indeed been lengthy and that shortcomings in the composition of the court did not justify the inactivity between 6 December 2001 and 17 June 2004, the court observed that provisions of the 2004 Act could be applied only to the proceedings pending after 17 September 2004, i.e. the date of the entry into force of the 2004   Act. 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 19 February 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   12,000 (twelve 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 21 March 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 12,000 (twelve thousand Polish zlotys) to Mr Krzysztof Neugebauer 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 public policy 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