CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 3 juillet 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .s66CC5A41 { width:26.02pt; display:inline-block } .s83D0CA8 { width:159.11pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s8DC73591 { width:184.78pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 18468/09 Małgorzata MARCHEL against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3   July   2012 as a Committee composed of:   David Thór Björgvinsson, President,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 March 2009, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEDURE The applicant, Ms Małgorzata Marchel, is a Polish national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Sterdyń. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J.   Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The applicant complained without invoking any Convention provisions about the length of civil proceedings concerning the division of matrimonial property. THE LAW On 27 April 2012 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I, Małgorzata Marchel, 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   6,700 (six thousand seven hundred 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 4 June 2012 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 Małgorzata Marchel, with a view to securing a   friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, PLN   6,700 (six thousand seven hundred 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.   Fatoş Aracı   David Thór Björgvinsson   Deputy Registrar   President