CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 15 novembre 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s68A4A370 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; 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 } .sDF4DF156 { width:155.75pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 61673/10 Anna GAŁUS against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 15   November 2011 as a Chamber composed of:   David Thór Björgvinsson, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Päivi Hirvelä,   George Nicolaou,   Ledi Bianku,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva,   Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 October 2010, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEDURE The applicant, Ms Anna Gałus, is a Polish national who was born in   1956 and lives in Puławy. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 15   May 2007, in a school in Puławy where the applicant worked as a teacher, a meeting of the pupils’ parents with teachers and officials of the local educational authorities was held. Subsequently, the headmistress of the school lodged a private bill of indictment against the applicant with the Puławy Regional Court, relying on Article 212 § 1 of the Criminal Code, penalising the offence of defamation. She referred to certain statements made by the applicant during the meeting. By a judgment of 26 January 2009 the Puławy Regional Court acquitted the applicant. The headmistress appealed. On 7   July 2009 the Lublin Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case. By a judgment of 10 February 2010 the Puławy District Court found the applicant guilty of defamation. The applicant appealed. By a judgment of 10 June 2009 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed the appeal. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the criminal conviction had amounted to a breach of her right to freedom of expression. THE LAW On 15 September 2011 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I, Anna Gałus, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me, with a   view to securing a friendly settlement of the above ‑ mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, PLN   12,000 (twelve thousand Polish zlotys) to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to me. This sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision 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 19 October 2011 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 Ms Anna Gałus, with a view to securing a   friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, PLN   12,000 (twelve thousand Polish zlotys) to cover any and all pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be   chargeable to the applicant. This sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision 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   David Thór Björgvinsson   Registrar   President