FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 18855/02
by J.P.
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 November 2003 as a Chamber composed of:
MrM. Pellonpää, President,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrR. Maruste,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 April 2002,
Having regard to the parties’ declarations on concluding a friendly settlement,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms J.P., is a Polish national who was born in 1947 and lives in Warsaw. The respondent Government were represented by their Agents, Mr K. Drzewicki and, subsequently, by Ms S. Jaczewska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 26 September 1997 the applicant, who is a journalist and works for a magazine “A,” lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court a civil action for defamation against an author of an article published in a magazine “B.” She submitted that the publication had damaged her good name and reputation and had caused a lot of suffering for her and her fourteen-year-old daughter. The applicant claimed PLN 30,000 in compensation and requested the defendant to publish an apology in a daily national newspaper and in both magazines in question.
On 27 January 1999 the trial court held a first hearing.
On 2 August 1999 the Warsaw Regional Court held a second hearing at which one witness was heard.
Between 3 August 1999 and 7 November 2000 no hearings were held.
At the next hearing held on 8 November 2000 the defendants failed to appear before the trial court. The hearing was adjourned sine die.
On 18 July 2001 the applicant complained about the length of the proceedings to the President of the Warsaw Regional Court. The President agreed to personally supervise the proceedings and admitted that the delay in examining the case was caused by the conduct of the trial court.
Between 9 November 2000 and 6 November 2001 no hearings were held.
Subsequently, the trial court held hearings on 7 November 2001 and on 29 May 2002.
The proceedings are pending before the Warsaw Regional Court.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings had exceeded a reasonable time.
THE LAW
On 26 September 2003 the Court received the following declaration signed by the respondent Government:
“I declare that, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case, the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 15,000 to Mrs. J. P. This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable within three months.... This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay, until settlement, simple interest on the amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points....”
On 17 October 2003 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 covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts of this application. I declare that this constitutes a final settlement of the case.
This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and I have reached...”
The Court takes note of the agreement 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, the application to the case of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued and the case struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Michael O’BoyleMatti Pellonpää
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy