FOURTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
Application no. 17992/03
by Józef FRANOSZ and Urszula FRANOSZ
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 May 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 applicants, Mr Józef Franosz and Ms Urszula Franosz, are a married couple. They are Polish nationals who were both born in 1935 and who live in Ruda Śląska, Poland. They were represented before the Court by Ms H. Korzan‑Rybska, a lawyer practising in Katowice. 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 applicants, may be summarised as follows:
1. Civil proceedings for compensation
On 7 April 1995 the applicants filed a civil action seeking to recover damages resulting from the mining activities of the respondent, the “Rudzka Spółka Węglowa” mining joint stock company. The applicants claimed, inter alia, that the entire construction of their house had tilted and the walls had cracked as a result of underground works carried out by the respondent.
The case was examined by the Ruda Śląska District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) as the first‑instance court. The court held eight hearings and appointed consecutively nine experts in geology, engineering and construction works. In spite of the multiple admonishments and two threats of fines issued to the experts, there were significant delays in obtaining the expert reports requested.
On 18 May 2000 the applicants modified their original claim and asked for compensation in a certain amount. On 25 April 2001 they increased the amount of the compensation sought.
On 5 June 2001 the Ruda Śląska District Court ruled in the applicants’ favour awarding them a certain amount of compensation.
On 13 November 2001, upon the appeal of the respondent, the Gliwice Regional Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case.
On 11 February 2002 the Ruda Śląska District Court ordered that the records of the applicants’ related case examined between 1990 and 1992 by the Bytom Regional Commission for Mining Damage be obtained. In this connection, the applicants instituted proceedings for the reconstruction of lost records. Pending the outcome of these proceedings, from 26 July 2002 to 5 February 2003 the main proceedings before the Ruda Śląska District Court were stayed.
On 29 October 2003 the Ruda Śląska District Court gave judgment awarding compensation to the applicants. The respondent appealed.
On 6 May 2004 the Gliwice Regional Court dismissed the appeal.
No cassation appeal was lodged.
2. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
On 4 March 2005 the applicants filed a complaint with the Katowice Court of Appeal, pursuant to the transitional provision of section 18 of the 2004 Act.
The provision in question was available to those complainants who, as the applicants in the present case, had lodged an application with the Strasbourg Court alleging a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the unreasonable length of proceedings, provided that their application with the Court had been lodged in the course of the proceedings and that the Court had not yet adopted a decision concerning the admissibility of their case. The complaint under the transitional provision may be lodged even if the proceedings in question had meanwhile been terminated.
On 10 June 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings, finding that there had been one period of unjustified inactivity on the part of the Ruda Śląska District Court, between May 1996 and 20 November 1998, when the court was awaiting an expert report from the Śląska Polytechnic. The Katowice Court of Appeal awarded the applicants a total amount of 2,500 Polish zlotys (PLN) in just satisfaction.
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 applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
On 18 June 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicants:
“We, Józef and Urszula Franosz, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay us the sum of 3,000 euros (EUR) (EUR 1,500 to each of us) 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 converted into Polish zlotys at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of the 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.
We accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts of these applications. We declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
On 25 June 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Polish Government:
“I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay 3,000 euros (EUR) (EUR 1,500 to each applicant) to Józef and Urszula Franosz 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 converted into Polish zlotys at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of the 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 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.
T.L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy