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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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. 32561/05 by Rafał NAJDROWSKI 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,   Ljiljana Mijović,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ján Šikuta,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Mihai Poalelungi, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 August 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 Rafał Najdrowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Piła. 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.     Criminal proceedings against the applicant A bill of indictment against the applicant and a co-accused was prepared on 30 March 1998 and lodged with the Piła District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) on 3 April 1998. On 13 May 1998 the District Court held a hearing, which was adjourned because the applicant and his co-accused had failed to appear. On 10 March 2000 the District Court held a hearing and heard evidence from the applicant and his co-accused. On an unspecified date the court held a further hearing, during which the court found that the accused, who had again failed to appear, were living abroad at the time. On 13 April 2000 the District Court decided to detain the accused on remand in their absence, ordered that a wanted notice be issued in respect of them and stayed the proceedings. Between 13 April 2000 and 24 January 2003 the case lay dormant. On 24 January 2003 the court resumed the proceedings and discontinued them in respect of the applicant’s co-accused since the proceedings against him were time-barred. Between 6 March 2003 and 3 April 2003 the court heard evidence from the applicant and three witnesses. On 3 April 2003 the court again stayed the proceedings because the addresses of two other witnesses were unknown. Since 3 April 2003 the proceedings have been stayed. 2.     Proceedings under the 2004 Act On 31 January 2005 the applicant lodged with the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) a complaint alleging a breach of his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time under 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”). He relied on section 5 of the 2004 Act. On 16 March 2005 the Regional Court dismissed his complaint as manifestly ill-founded. The court examined the conduct of the impugned proceedings and held that there had been no delays for which the District Court could be held responsible. It found that the impossibility of hearing evidence from a witness had been a long-standing impediment to continuing the proceedings (długotrwała przeszkoda uniemożliwiająca prowadzenie postępowania). Invoking judgments of the Strasbourg Court, the District Court held that “only delays attributable to the State may justify a violation of the reasonable time requirement”. The District Court held at the same time that the first-instance court should “intensify its attempts to locate the place of residence of the missing witness” and, “possibly even consider reading out the records of his testimony (odczytanie zeznań) given during the investigation”. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are set out 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 unreasonable length of the proceedings in his case. THE LAW On 2 May 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I, Rafał Najdrowski, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN   11,000 (eleven 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 and 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 15 May 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I, Jakub Wołąsiewicz, Agent of the Government, declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 11,000 (eleven thousand Polish zlotys) to Mr Rafał Najdrowski 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 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 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