FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF CHUDYBA v. POLAND
(Application no. 71621/01)
JUDGMENT
(Friendly settlement)
STRASBOURG
23 September 2003
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Chudyba v. Poland,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrR. Maruste,
MrL. Garlicki,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 September 2003,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 71621/01) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Mrs Teresa Chudyba (“the applicant”), on 11 September 2000.
2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr K. Drzewicki, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings.
4. On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed Fourth Section (Rule 52 § 1).
5. On 11 February 2003 the Court decided to communicate the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.
6. On 17 and 24 June 2003 the Government and the applicant respectively submitted formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.
THE FACTS
7. The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.
8. On 17 December 1990 the applicant sued the “Dromex” Company (“the defendant”) in the Warszawa-Praga District Court of Labour and Social Security (Sad Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Pragi Wydzial Pracy), seeking payment of her remuneration.
9. The trial court held hearings on the following dates: 22 February, 17 April, 8 November 1991 and 10 January 1992.
10. On 24 August 1992 the expert opinion was submitted to the court. Subsequently, the court held hearings on 16 December 1992 and 12 March 1993.
11. On 4 May 1993 a supplementary expert opinion was submitted to the court.
12. The court held further hearings on: 3 September, 24 November 1993 and 25 February 1994.
13. On 21 June 1994 a second supplementary expert opinion was submitted to the court.
14. Subsequently, the trial court held a new round of hearings on: 24 June, 9 November 1994, 3 February 1995, 7 April, 21 July, 13 November 1995, 14 June, 9 October 1996 and 7 March 1997.
15. On 30 November 1997 the court obtained a fresh expert opinion from another expert.
16. The court held additional hearings: 16 February 1998, 26 January, 27 June, 8 November 1999, 20 January and 7 April 2000.
17. On 17 April 2000 the court gave judgment. It became final on 8 May 2000.
THE LAW
18. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings.
A. Admissibility
19. The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. The Court will therefore declare it admissible.
B. Solution reached
20. On 17 June 2003 the Court received the following declaration signed by the respondent Government:
“I declare that, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case, the Government of Poland offer to pay 15,000 PLN to Ms Teresa Chudyba. This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the decision by the Court pursuant to Article 39 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay, until settlement, simple interest on the amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
The Government further undertake not to request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1of the Convention.”
21. On 24 June 2003 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of 15,000 PLN covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts of this application. I declare that this constitutes a final settlement of the case.
This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and I have reached.
I further undertake not to request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention after delivery of the Court’s judgment.”
22. The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 §§ 3 and 4 of the Rules of Court).
23. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Decides to strike the case out of the list;
3. Takes note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a rehearing of the case before the Grand Chamber.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 September 2003, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Michael O’BoyleNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy