FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 75981/01
by Waldemar KĄCICKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5 December 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrG. Bonello,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta, judges,
and Mrs F. ELens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 January 2001,
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 observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Waldemar Kącicki, is a Polish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Jarosław, Poland. 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 4 June 1998 a certain R.P. informed the police that he had been assaulted and robbed by the applicant. On 10 June 1998 the Jarosław District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) opened an investigation into the allegations.
On 21 July 1998 the applicant was brought before the prosecutor and charged with assault and robbery.
On 26 November 1998 the prosecutor stayed the proceedings considering that it was necessary to obtain evidence from a witness - W.P. The witness despite having been duly summoned failed to appear and it had not been possible to bring him before the prosecutor.
On 24 March 1999 the applicant’s lawyer asked the District Prosecutor to resume the proceedings. On an unknown later date the prosecutor refused this request.
On 30 December 2002 the prosecutor resumed the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
On 31 December 2002 the Jarosław District Prosecutor discontinued the investigation against the applicant on the ground that the act with which he had been charged had not amounted to a criminal offence.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of the investigation proceedings in his case.
THE LAW
On 4 October 2006 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Waldemar Kącicki, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN 9,000 (nine 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 of this application. I declare that this constitutes a final settlement of the case.”
On 3 November 2006 the Court received the following declaration from the Polish Government:
“I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 9,000 (nine thousand Polish zlotys) to Mr Waldemar Kącicki 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 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. 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.
Françoise Elens-PassosNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy