FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 41267/07
by Henryk GARLICKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 September 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
George Nicolaou,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Nebojša Vučinić,
Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 September 2007,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Henryk Garlicki, is a Polish national who was born in 1934 and lives in Nisko. He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Bentkowska-Kiczor and, subsequently, by Ms M. Gąsiorowska, lawyers practising in Warsaw. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
On 25 January 2011 the President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to communicate the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of the seizure orders made by the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor on 16 February 2007.
THE LAW
On 8 July 2011 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Jakub Wołąsiewicz, Agent of the Government, declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay, to Mr Henryk Garlicki, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, a global sum of 16,210 (sixteen thousand two hundred and ten) Polish zlotys, to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. I further certify that the seized amount of PLN 38,000 was returned to the applicant on 4 August 2010.
The sum of 16,210 Polish zlotys will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision 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 8 July 2011 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant’s representative:
“I, Monika Gąsiorowska, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay to Mr Henryk Garlicki, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, a global sum of 16,210 (sixteen thousand two hundred and ten) Polish zlotys, to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. I further note that the Government certify that the seized amount of PLN 38,000 was returned to the applicant on 4 August 2010.
The sum of 16,210 Polish zlotys will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision 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.
Having consulted my client, I would inform you that he accepts the proposal and waives any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. He declares 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.
Fatoş AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy