CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 10 juin 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 } .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 } .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. 37991/04 by Lidia PAWŁOWSKA against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10   June 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Ljiljana Mijović,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ján Šikuta,   Ledi Bianku,   Mihai Poalelungi, judges,   Päivi Hirvelä, substitute judge, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 September 2004, Having regard to the Court’s decision to examine jointly the admissibility and merits of the case (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention), Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case. Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Lidia Pawłowska, is a Polish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Kołobrzeg. 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 3 December 1993 inheritance proceedings were initiated before the Tuchola District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ). The applicant was one of the heirs. On 20 June 1994 one of the parties to the proceedings submitted a request to have the judge disqualified. The request was supported by other parties and also by the applicant. During the proceedings several of the parties submitted statements of their suspicions that the records of the proceedings had been falsified. During the proceedings approximately 28 witnesses were heard and the court requested the opinion of two experts. On 4 July 2000 the Tuchola District Court granted the estate to one of the parties. On 16 August 2000 the applicant appealed against the decision. Appeals were also lodged by three other parties. On 13 March 2003 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 15 September 2003 the applicant and three other parties lodged a cassation appeal. On 23 October 2003 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court rejected the cassation appeal since the applicant had failed to state the grounds of appeal. On 6 November 2003 the applicant appealed against the decision. On 28 January 2004 the Supreme Court ( Sąd Najwyższy ) dismissed the appeal. 2.     Claim for damages under the 2004 Act On 4 May 2005 the applicant and her representative (being a party to the inheritance proceedings) lodged a claim for damages. The applicant sought a ruling declaring that on account of the excessive length of the proceedings before the District and Regional Court she had sustained pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage in the sum of 5,000   Polish   zlotys   (PLN) (approx. EUR   1,200). On 9 February 2006 the Bydgoszcz District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. It relied on section 16 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”), which entered into force on 17   September 2004, read in conjunction with Article   417 of the Civil Code. The court stated that the applicant had failed to prove any pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage resulting from the excessive length of the proceedings. The court also referred to the fact that the alleged excessive length of the proceedings, raised by the applicant, had occurred before the   2004   Act entered into force. Consequently, section   16 of the   2004   Act was not applicable. On 14 September 2006 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court upheld the judgment of the District Court. A cassation appeal was not available. 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 judgment in the case of Krasuski   v.   Poland , no.   61444/00, §§   34 ‑ 46, ECHR   2005 ‑ V. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. She further complained under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention that her trial had been unfair in that the court had not taken all the relevant evidence into consideration.     Finally, she complained under Article   8 of the Convention that the records of the proceedings were at variance with the witness statements. THE LAW On 9 January 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 Ms Lidia Pawłowska 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 15 April 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.” 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 of the Convention 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