FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 21905/06
by Irena CZEMARNIK-NOGA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 May 2006,
Having regard to the Court’s decision to examine jointly the admissibility and merits of the case (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Irena Czemarnik-Noga, is a Polish national who was born in 1944 and lives in Bytom. 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.
1. Proceedings for division of the matrimonial property
On 23 December 1996 the applicant lodged an application for division of matrimonial property with the Bytom District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).
During the proceedings the hearings were scheduled approximately once every three months. The hearings were often adjourned due to the failure of witnesses and the applicant’s husband to appear.
On 21 October 2002 the District Court issued a partial decision on the inventory of the matrimonial property. The applicant appealed. On 21 February 2003 the District Court dismissed the appeal. The applicant appealed against the decision. On 24 April 2003 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld the District Court’s decision.
On 18 March 2004 and 20 October 2004 the Bytom District Court ordered that an expert valuation of the matrimonial property be carried out.
On 30 June 2005 the District Court ruled on the division of the matrimonial property. The applicant’s husband appealed.
On 30 November 2005 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the appeal. The applicant’s husband lodged a cassation appeal.
On 20 April 2006 the Katowice Regional Court rejected the cassation appeal as it was inadmissible in law (the amount in dispute was too low).
2. The applicant’s complaint under the 2004 Act
On 9 October 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint under section 5 of the Law on 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”) which entered into force on 17 September 2004.
On 16 November 2005 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the complaint. It held that the 2004 Act was of full legal effect as of the date of its entry into force. The court found that during the relevant part of the proceedings, there had been no inactivity or undue delay on the part of the authorities. In that connection, the court held that there had been no breach of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time in the period after 17 September 2004.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are stated in the Court’s decisions in the cases of Charzyński v. Poland no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V and Ratajczyk v. Poland no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the excessive length of proceedings. In particular, she referred to undue delays that occurred before the first-instance court.
THE LAW
On 30 May 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Irena Czemarnik-Noga, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN 15,000 (fifteen 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.”
On 11 June 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 15,000 (fifteen thousand Polish zlotys) to Ms Irena Czemarnik-Noga 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 and 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.”
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 AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy