CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 17 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 } .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. 9727/06 by Artur Stanisław LEWANDOWSKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17   June 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 April 2005, 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 Artur Stanisław Lewandowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Wołów. 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 9 September 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed a robbery. On 10 September 1999 he was released. It appears that on 22 February 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against him. On an unspecified date the court ordered that the applicant be detained on remand. On 27 April 2000 the applicant was indicted before the Wrocław District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ). The charges concerning robbery were brought against 5 accused. The first hearing was scheduled for 15 June 2000. However, the trial did not start because some of the accused were not brought by the police from remand centres. In sum, 10 out of the 17 subsequent hearings scheduled by the first   instance court were cancelled due to the same reason. On 31 October 2001 the Wrocław District Court convicted the applicant as charged. On 21 January 2002 he lodged an appeal. At the appellate hearing held on 31 October 2002, the Wrocław Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) quashed the first-instance judgment in respect of the applicant and one of the co-accused and remitted the case to the Wrocław District Court. According to the applicant, he could not attend the hearing as he had not been transported to the court from the remand centre. On 7 October 2003 the Wrocław District Court scheduled a new hearing for 6 November 2003. However, it was postponed until 17   November   2003. On an unspecified date a legal-aid lawyer was appointed for the applicant. On 17 November 2003 the court adjourned the hearing. Between December 2003 and May 2004 the court listed 4 hearings. Two of them were cancelled. Because one of the lay judges was abroad, at the hearing on 20   May   2004 the Wrocław District Court changed the composition of the trial court and restarted the trial. After two more hearings, on 11 August 2004 the Wrocław District Court gave judgment and convicted the applicant as charged. On 16 August 2004 the applicant and his lawyer lodged a notice of appeal. On 12 October and 25 October 2004 the applicant’s lawyer and the applicant himself lodged appeals against the first-instance judgment. On 23 March 2005 the Wrocłw Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment. On 28 May 2005 the applicant’s lawyer refused to lodge a cassation appeal as it lacked any prospects of success. The same conclusion was expressed in the Ombudsman’s letter to the applicant dated 6 October 2005. 2.     The applicant’s complaint under the 2004 Act On 28 January 2005 the applicant lodged with the Wrocław Regional Court 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 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 15 February 2005 the court dismissed the complaint. It stated that as of the date of entry into force of the 2004 Act the proceedings had not been lengthy. Further, relying on a resolution of the Supreme Court given on 19   January   2005, the court observed that the provisions of the 2004 Act could be applied only to proceedings pending after 17 September 2004, i.e. the date of the entry into force of the 2004 Act. The court did not examine the period before 17 September 2004. 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. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. 2.     Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, he further complained in substance that the proceedings in his case had been unfair. 3.     Under Article 13 of the Convention, he also alleged the ineffectiveness of the remedy under the 2004 Act. 4.     Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 6 and Article 13 of the Convention about the alleged lack of an effective remedy to secure his presence at the appellate hearing held on 31 October 2002. THE LAW 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   10,000 (ten 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 22 April 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 10,000 (ten thousand Polish zlotys) to Mr Artur Stanisław Lewandowski 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). For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Lawrence Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President