CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 17 mars 2009

.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 } .sFC1B4D41 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3CCA30AE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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. 22074/03 by Krzysztof PISZ and Grażyna PISZ against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17   March 2009 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Giovanni Bonello,   Ljiljana Mijović,   Ján Šikuta,   Mihai Poalelungi,   Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 June 2003, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mr Krzysztof Pisz and Mrs Grażyna Pisz, are Polish nationals who were born in 1956 and 1961 respectively and live in Lublin. 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. The applicants are a married couple and own a first-floor flat in Lublin. In 1999 W.W., without obtaining the requisite licence, converted business premises ( lokal użytkowy ) on the ground floor below the   applicants' flat into a launderette. The applicants instituted two sets of   administrative proceedings seeking an order to close the launderette down. B.     Proceedings before the sanitary inspectors On 16 January 2001 the applicants complained to the local Disease Control Centre (Powiatowa Stacja Sanitarno-Epidemiologiczna) that the smell of chemical emissions was coming from the launderette. On 31 January 2002 after inspecting the site the Lublin Local Sanitary Inspector (Powiatowy Inspektor Sanitarny) ordered W.W. to close down the launderette and install a ventilation system. He found that the launderette was emitting chemical substances which created a health hazard for people living in the neighbourhood and ordered that it was not to re-open without his permission. On 6 February 2002 W.W. appealed against that decision. On 25 February 2002 the Lublin Regional Sanitary Inspector (Wojewódzki Inspektor Sanitarny) upheld the local inspector's decision. On an unspecified date W.W. lodged a complaint against that decision with the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) , which on 28 October 2003 quashed the decision and remitted the case for   re-examination. On 21 January 2004 the regional inspector quashed the decision at first instance and remitted the case for further examination by the local inspector. On 20 February 2004 the applicants lodged a complaint against that   decision with the Lublin Regional Administrative Court (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny). They also requested a stay of execution (wstrzymanie wykonania zaskarżonej decyzji). On 22 April 2004 the Lublin Regional Administrative Court issued a   preliminary decision (postanowienie) and, finding that enforcement of   the   regional inspector's decision might pose a health hazard for people living in the building, granted the applicants' request for a stay. On 1 July 2004 the Lublin Regional Administrative Court quashed the   regional inspector's decision of 21 January 2004. On 2 August 2004 the regional inspector noted that the launderette had   closed down and discontinued the administrative proceedings. C.     Proceedings before the Inspector of Construction Supervision On 17 December 2001 the Lublin Local Inspector of Construction Supervision (Powiatowy Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego) issued an order for the illegal operation of the launderette to cease. On an unspecified date W.W. appealed. On 6 February 2002 the Lublin Regional Inspector of Construction Supervision (Wojewódzki Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego) upheld the first-instance decision. The decision of 17 December 2001 was valid for a period of two months. Therefore, on 20 February 2002 the Lublin Local Inspector of Construction Supervision gave another decision to close down the launderette. On an unspecified date W.W. appealed against that decision. On 19 April 2003 the Lublin Regional Inspector of Construction Supervision quashed the challenged decision of 20 February 2002 and remitted the case for re-examination. On 10 June 2002 the Lublin Local Inspector of Construction Supervision ordered W.W. to carry out additional work to bring the launderette into line with the applicable provisions of administrative law by 30 August 2002. On 16 September 2002 the local Inspector of Construction Supervision, noting that the time-limit referred to above had expired and the work had still not been carried out, ordered W.W. to stop operating the launderette. On an unspecified date W.W. appealed against that decision. On 13 December 2002 the Lublin Regional Inspector of Construction Supervision quashed the challenged decision of 16 September 2002. On 15 January 2003 the Local Inspector of Construction Supervision again ordered W.W to stop operating the launderette. On an unspecified date W.W. lodged a further appeal. On 17 March 2003 the Regional Inspector of Construction Supervision upheld the challenged decision of 15 January 2003. On an unspecified date W.W. lodged a complaint against the decision of   17 March 2003 with the Lublin Regional Administrative Court. On 11 May 2004 the Lublin Regional Administrative Court dismissed the complaint. On an unspecified date W.W. lodged a cassation complaint with   the   Supreme Administrative Court . On 22 March 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the   Regional Administrative Court's judgment and the preceding decision of   17   March 2003. On 3 August 2005 the Regional Inspector of Construction Supervision gave a decision, quashed the first-instance decision of 15 January 2003 and discontinued the proceedings after noting that the launderette had closed down. D.     Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law concerning remedies for inactivity on the part of the administrative authorities at the material time is set out in the Court's judgment in the case of Grabiński v. Poland , no. 43702/02, §§ 60-65, 17   October 2006. 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 described in the Court's decisions in   the   cases of Charzyński v. Poland no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR   2005-V; 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. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that both sets of the administrative proceedings in which they were involved had lasted an   unreasonably long time. They further complained under Article 6 § 1 that both sets of proceedings had been unfair. They also alleged a breach of Article 8, claiming that the chemical substances emitted by the launderette had interfered with their right to respect for   their private and family life. Lastly, they alleged a breach of Article 13 of the Convention, on   the   ground that their appeals and complaints had not afforded an effective remedy, and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, without further explanation.   THE LAW On 7 January 2009 the Court received the following declaration, signed by the applicants: “We, Grażyna and Krzysztof Pisz, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay us the sum of PLN 18,000 (eighteen 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. We accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. We declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.” On 6 February 2009 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I, Jakub Wołąsiewicz, Agent of the Polish Government, declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 18,000 (eighteen thousand Polish zlotys) to Mrs   Grażyna Pisz and Mr Krzysztof Pisz 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 a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate 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