THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 54676/00
by Włodzimierz CHLEWICKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29 November 2001 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrP. Kūris,
MrR. Türmen,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrsH.S. Greve, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged with the Court on 23 February 1999 and registered on 7 February 2000,
Having regard to the written submissions of the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Włodzimierz Chlewicki, is a Polish national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Raszyn Rybie, Poland.
The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Krzysztof Drzewicki, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant and his wife were co-owners of an estate which consisted of a house and a plot of land. On 6 June 1986 L.W., one of the other co‑owners (“the petitioner”), filed with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an application for partition of the estate. The applicant and his wife were parties to these proceedings.
On 23 April 1987 the court stayed the proceedings because Ł.N., one of the parties, had failed to comply with the court order to produce certain documents. On 9 October 1987, on the petitioner’s appeal, the court resumed the proceedings. Prior to 18 May 1988 the court held four hearings and obtained one expert report.
On 18 May 1988 the court gave a decision. The applicant’s wife appealed. On 6 October 1989, the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) set aside the first-instance decision and remitted the case.
On 22 December 1989 the District Court gave a partial decision. One of the parties appealed. On 21 September 1990 the Warsaw Regional Court set aside the first-instance partial decision and remitted the case.
After the remittal of the case, the District Court held six hearings (the last one on 11 January 1993). It also obtained two expert reports.
In October 1992, a certain B.T.K. acquired a part of the petitioner’s share in the estate. On 13 January 1993 she requested that the court grant her leave to join the proceedings as a party.
On 1 September 1993 the District Court summoned B.T.K to join the proceedings. On 15 October 1993 the court held a hearing.
On 14 March 1994 the court ordered an expert report, which was submitted on 16 November 1994. On 18 March 1995 the court ordered that the report be served on the parties. On 31 March 1995 all the parties, except for one, submitted their joint observations on the report. On 13 May 1995 the court ordered a supplementary expert report.
On 17 October 1995 the petitioner informed the court that all the parties had agreed to partition the plot on which the house was situated.
On 25 March 1996 the court ordered the petitioner to produce a plan of partition of the estate. On 18 April 1996 the court stayed the proceedings as the petitioner had not complied with the order of 25 March 1996.
On 21 March 1997 the petitioner withdrew her application for partition of the estate in respect of the plot and requested that the proceedings be resumed.
On 2 June 1997 the court ordered the petitioner to produce a copy of an entry in the land register. On 3 July 1997 the document was submitted to the court.
On 8 October 1997 the applicant requested that the proceedings be resumed. He also submitted a settlement proposal.
On 15 December 1997 the court resumed the proceedings. It held a hearing and ordered the parties to file their pleadings. The court also ordered Ł.W., one of the parties, to produce a power of attorney of J.W. and P.W. (the co-owners of one-third share in the estate).
On 19 February 1998 the applicant submitted to the court a settlement proposal and an expert report prepared at the parties’ initiative.
On 26 February 1998 the court stayed the proceedings because Ł.W. had not complied with the order of 15 December 1997. On 24 March 1998 the applicant appealed against the decision to stay the proceedings. On 14 August 1998 the District Court quashed the impugned decision. On 10 March 1999 the court ordered Ł.W. to produce a power of attorney of J.W. and P.W. or their addresses.
It appears that the proceedings are pending before the Warsaw District Court.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings.
THE LAW
On 10 July 2001 the Court decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.
On 8 November 2001 the Court received the following declaration from the respondent Government:
“I declare that the Government of the Republic of Poland offer to pay to Mr Włodzimierz CHLEWICKI a sum of 10 000 (ten thousand) PLN with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the application no. 54676/00 pending before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. This sum shall cover any eventual pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable to the applicant after signing the declarations by the parties concerned, however not later than three months after the notification of the decision delivered by the Court pursuant to Article 39 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
I declare at the same time that the offer of the above-mentioned amount has been made in connection with duration of the proceedings in the applicant’s case before the organs of the Polish judiciary.
I further undertake not to request the reference of the case to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 of the European Convention.”
On 8 November 2001 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I note hereby that the Government of the Republic of Poland are prepared to pay to me a sum of 10 000 (ten thousand) PLN covering any eventual pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the application no. 54676/00 pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
I further undertake not to request the reference of the case to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 of the European Convention.”
The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties and considers that the matter has been resolved (Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the case out of the list.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy