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 } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3CCA30AE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .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 } .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. 42001/06 by Stanisław ŚLIWA 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,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Ledi Bianku, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 October 2006, 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 Stanisław Śliwa, is a Polish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Libusza. 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.     Civil proceedings for establishing an easement On 2 April 1996 the applicant lodged a motion with the Jasło District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) for the establishment of an easement ( ustanowienie drogi koniecznej ). On 16 July 2001 the applicant lodged a motion with the District Court requesting that his case be dealt with within a reasonable time. On 27 July 2006 the court ruled on the establishment of the easement. On 17 September 2006 the applicant appealed against the District Court’s decision as he considered that the easement had not been established in accordance with the most suitable option. The case is apparently still pending before the Krosno Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ). 2.     The applicant’s complaint under the 2004 Act On 11 January 2006 the applicant filed with the Krosno Regional Court a complaint under the provisions of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a fair 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. On 18 August 2006 the Krosno Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court held that the 2004 Act produced legal effects as from the date of entry into force. The court acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings as a whole. However, it found that during the relevant part of the proceedings, there had been no inactivity or undue delay on the part of the domestic court. The court held that there had been no breach of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time in the period after 17 September 2004. 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 and the judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland , no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings. THE LAW On 28 March 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “ I, Stanisław Śliwa , 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.” On 7 April 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Agent of the Government: “I, Jakub Wołąsiewicz, Agent of the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 10,000 to Mr Stanisław Śliwa 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.” The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties and considers that the matter has been resolved (Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Lawrence Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President