FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 11604/06
by Danuta GAŁKA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 November 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 March 2006,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Danuta Gałka, is a Polish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Sułoszowa. 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.
On 31 December 2003 the applicant requested the Kraków Social Security Board to grant her a benefit on account of her unfitness for work (renta z tytułu niezdolności do pracy).
On 12 March 2004 the Social Security Board refused this application. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision.
On 29 December 2004 the Kraków Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant appealed. On 11 October 2005 the Kraków Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal.
On an unspecified later date the applicant requested the Court of Appeal to appoint a legal-aid lawyer with a view to filing a cassation appeal. She submitted that, given her disability, she had no means to cover the costs of legal assistance.
On 7 November 2005 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s request for the appointment of a legal-aid lawyer. Its decision was not reasoned.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
Legal provisions concerning the compulsory legal representation in cassation appeal proceedings applicable at the material time are set out in paragraphs 27‑31 of the Court’s judgment in the case of Laskowska v. Poland, no. 77765/01, 13 March 2007.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complained that the Court of Appeal dismissed her application for the appointment of a legal‑aid lawyer in the cassation appeal proceedings and thus deprived her of a possibility to have her case examined by the Supreme Court.
THE LAW
On 3 September 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Jakub Wołąsiewicz, Agent of the Polish Government, declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 6,800 (six thousand eight hundred Polish zlotys) to Ms Danuta Gałka 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.”
On 10 September 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Ms Danuta Gałka, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN 6,800 (six thousand eight hundred 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 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. 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 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.
Lawrence EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy