FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 12529/05
by Monika ARENT
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 March 2005,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Monika Arent, is a Polish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Turek. 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.
By a judgment of 24 September 2002 the Turku District Court allowed a paternity claim against K.O. lodged by the applicant’s son and by the applicant herself and held that he was obliged to pay monthly maintenance to the applicant’s son in the amount of PLN 1,000.
As he failed to pay, the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings which were conducted by the court bailiff.
Subsequently, the applicant claimed compensation from the bailiff. She argued that she had suffered damage arising out of the fact that the bailiff had been negligent and excessively slow in the conduct of the enforcement proceedings. As a result, her child had been deprived of subsistence means for long periods and the social assistance had refused to pay anything to her, relying on the fact that the father was obliged to pay maintenance.
By a decision of 31 March 2004 the Garwolin District Court allowed the applicant’s request for an exemption from court fees.
By a decision of 30 April 2004 the same court refused the applicant’s request to assign a legal-aid lawyer to her case, holding that she was well able to represent herself and her son effectively. The applicant appealed against this decision.
By a judgment of 4 June 2004 the Garwolin District Court dismissed the applicant’s compensation claim, finding that she had not shown that she had suffered any pecuniary damage as a result of the bailiff’s negligence. The mere fact that the enforcement proceedings were lengthy and that her son, as a result, was not paid maintenance, did not suffice for a finding that the bailiff’s acts had caused the applicant and her child any damage within the meaning of the applicable provisions of the Civil Code.
By a decision of 12 October 2004 the Siedlce Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the refusal of legal aid. It shared the conclusions of the lower court.
By a judgment of 2 December 2004 the Siedlce Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
By a decision of 13 January 2005 the Siedlce Regional Court allowed the applicant’s request to assign a legal-aid lawyer to the case for the purposes of the cassation proceedings. On the same date the court requested the Regional Bar Council to assign a lawyer to represent the applicant.
By a letter of 15 February 2005 the lawyer informed the court that he saw no grounds on which to prepare a cassation appeal in the case.
By a letter of 9 March 2005 the court informed the applicant of the lawyer’s refusal. The letter further read:
“Having regard thereto, and also to the fact that the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal had expired, the court has sent the case file back to the District Court”.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings had been unfair in that the first-instance court had refused to allow her request for legal aid and that the court of appeal had examined her appeal against this decision on the merits of the case after the first–instance judgment had already been given. This had seriously undermined the prospects of success in her case.
The applicant further complained that she had been denied an effective access to a court since a cassation appeal had not been prepared and lodged with the Supreme Court.
The applicant finally complained about the outcome of the civil proceedings.
THE LAW
On 8 April 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 12,000 (twelve thousand Polish zlotys) to Ms Monika Arent 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. 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 period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
On the same date the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Monika ARENT, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN 12,000 (twelve 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. 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. 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.”
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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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 AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy