CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 septembre 2010

.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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s646AD26C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s51F2D829 { width:208.44pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 10405/09 by Tadeusz KLIMEK against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on   21   September 2010 as a Committee composed of:   Ljiljana Mijović, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 February 2009, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 29 April 2010 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant's reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Tadeusz Klimek, is a Polish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Mykanów. 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 the division of matrimonial property On 26 April 1996 the applicant and his wife were granted a divorce. On 9 June 1997 the applicant lodged an action for a division of matrimonial property. On 30 October 2007 the Częstochowa District Court gave a decision and divided the property accordingly. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed. On 9 December 2008 the Częstochowa Regional Court partly amended the decision and dismissed the remainder of the applicant's appeal. On 8 January 2009 the Częstochowa Regional Court dismissed the applicant's request to have a legal-aid counsel appointed with a view to lodging a cassation appeal. 2.     Proceedings under the 2004 Act On 4 October 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Częstochowa Regional Court of a breach of his right to a trial within   a   reasonable time in respect of the proceedings pending before the District Court and asked for just satisfaction. He relied on 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). On 1 December 2005 the Częstochowa Regional Court acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings and awarded the applicant PLN   2,000 as just satisfaction (the equivalent of EUR 510 at that time). It noted that out of twenty-six hearings that had been scheduled by the District Court, only thirteen had actually taken place. The court further held that in the light of the fact that the applicant had been absent from court hearings on several occasions, and therefore contributed to the overall length of the proceedings, the above-mentioned amount was adequate and sufficient. 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 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 its judgment in the case of Krasuski v.   Poland , no.   61444/00, §§   34-46, ECHR 2005-V. COMPLAINT The applicant complained in substance under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings. THE LAW A.     Length of proceedings The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings. He relied on Article 6 §   1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows: Article 6 § 1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to   a   ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” By letter dated 27 April 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration provided as follows: “(...) the Government hereby wish to express – by way of the unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement of the fact that the length of the civil proceedings in the present case was in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant can be considered a victim of a violation of his right to   a   hearing within “a reasonable time”. Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay the applicant PLN 15,000 in addition to the sum of PLN 2,000 granted to him in the domestic proceedings, which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court's case law (...). The sum referred to above, 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. 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 periods plus three percentage points. The Government would respectfully suggest that the above declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court's list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. ...” In a letter of 2 June 2010 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government's declaration was unacceptably low and wished that the examination of his application be continued. The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article   37 §   1   (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if: “for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”. It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey , [GC], no.   26307/95, §§ 75-77,   ECHR   2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26   June   2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v.   France [GC], no.   30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v.   Italy [GC], no.   64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006 ‑ ....; Majewski v.   Poland , no.   52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v.   Poland , no.   56026/00, 10 May 2007). Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government's declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)). Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously   Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government's declaration under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.   Fatoş Aracı   Ljiljana Mijović Deputy Registrar   President