FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 20959/06
by Tadeusz JAKUBOWSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 March 2006,
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 Tadeusz Jakubowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Kalisz. 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 acquisition of property by prescription
On 26 September 1996 the applicant lodged a claim for acquisition of property by prescription with the Kalisz District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).
The proceedings were stayed several times: between 7 November 1996 and 17 March 1997, between 13 June 1997 and 28 October 1999 and between 4 April 2001 and an unspecified date.
On 4 November 2003 the applicant complained to the President of the Kalisz Regional Court (Prezes Sądu Okręgowego) about the unreasonable length of the proceedings.
On 28 November 2003 the President of the Kalisz Regional Court replied that the proceedings had not been properly handled and ordered that the proceedings be supervised (objął postępowanie nadzorem administracyjnym).
On 5 January 2004 the Kalisz District Court again stayed the proceedings.
The applicant appealed.
On 31 March 2004 the Kalisz Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the challenged decision, holding that there had been no reason to stay the proceedings.
On 21 September 2004 the Kalisz District Court again stayed the proceedings, because one of the parties had died and her legal successors had not been named.
The proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court.
2. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of the civil proceedings for acquisition of property by prescription
On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Kalisz Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) 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 October 2004 the Kalisz Regional Court rejected the complaint on account of a procedural mistake.
On 7 December 2005 the applicant again lodged a complaint under section 5 of the 2004 Act.
He sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Kalisz District Court had been excessive. He also requested just satisfaction in an appropriate amount and that the District Court be ordered to resume the stayed proceedings.
On 12 January 2006 the Kalisz Regional Court dismissed his complaint. In the reasoning of its decision the court acknowledged that the length of proceedings had been excessive because “in spite of the fact that the proceedings have lasted for many years, the applicant’s claim has not been determined on the merits”. The court further held that the 2004 Act was applicable “only to the length of proceedings which occurred after its entry into force, i.e. after 17 September 2004, and only if the length was attributable to the court and not to the parties of the proceedings.”
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 about a violation of his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time.
THE LAW
On 4 July 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I 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 17 July 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Agent of the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 15,000 (fifteen thousand Polish zlotys) to Mr Tadeusz Jakubowski 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. 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). 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. Early Nicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy