FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 2751/04
by Andrzej CHUDYK
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 May 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović, judges,
and Mrs F. Araci, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 December 2003,
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, Mr Andrzej Chudyk, is a Polish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Gdynia.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
A. The criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 25 September 1997 the Gdynia District Prosecutor started an investigation against the applicant.
On 30 January 1998 the applicant was indicted before the Gdynia District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) on a charge of domestic violence.
On 5 October 1998 the Gdynia District Court convicted the applicant. He appealed against the judgment.
On 20 January 1999 the Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the judgment and remitted the case.
Subsequently, the trial court held several hearings and ordered expert opinions. On 27 October 2004 the District Court gave a judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to one year and six months’ imprisonment suspended for three years. The applicant appealed against the judgment.
On 11 March 2005 the Gdansk Regional Court dismissed the appeal.
On 7 March 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
On 19 June 2006 the Gdansk Regional Court dismissed the complaint. The court found that it could only examine the period between the entry into force of the 2004 Act on 17 September 2004 and the judgment of 27 October 2004 and, during this period the proceedings had been conducted speedily.
B. The civil proceedings
On 26 September 2000 the applicant lodged with the Gdynia District Court a civil claim in which he asked for a ruling that he was no longer obliged to support his two sons. The applicant argued that his sons were adults and worked whereas he was a pensioner and supported his third son, a minor.
The court held several hearings; however, there were apparently long periods of inactivity on the part of the trial court.
On 16 September 2004 the Gdynia Regional Court gave a judgment in which it allowed the applicant’s action.
Subsequently, the defendant lodged an appeal. However, it later withdrew it and on 13 January 2005 the court discontinued the proceedings.
On 25 February 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint under the 2004 Act about unreasonable length of the proceedings. He submitted that his complaint was admissible under transitional provisions contained in section 18 of the 2004 Act as, on 16 September 2004 when the proceedings were pending, he had lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights.
On 11 March 2005 the Gdansk Regional Court rejected the complaint holding that the provisions of the 2004 Act were applicable only to pending proceedings whereas the applicant had lodged his complaint after the termination of the main set of proceedings. The court made no reference to section 18 of the 2004 Act.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about, inter alia, the unreasonable length of both sets of proceedings.
THE LAW
On 11 April 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the Agent of the respondent Government:
“I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 12,000 to Mr Andrzej Chudyk 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 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 25 April 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Andrzej Chudyk, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN 12,000 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 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 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, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck 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