FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 52033/99
by Tadeusz KĘCZKOWSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 May 2004 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrR. Maruste,
MrL. Garlicki,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström, judges,
and Mr M. O'Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 November 1998,
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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Tadeusz Kęczkowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1932 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 17 June 1949 the Warsaw District Military Court convicted the applicant in connection with his membership in a high school organisation, which was considered an “illegal organisation established with the aim of subverting the political and legal system of the State.” He was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment and he served his sentence.
On 1 February 1995 the Warsaw Regional Court declared this conviction null and void.
On 13 February 1995 the applicant filed an application for compensation under the Law of 23 February 1991 on annulment of convictions whereby persons were persecuted for their activities aimed at achieving independence for Poland (Ustawa o uznaniu za nieważne orzeczeń wydanych wobec osób represejonowanych za działalnosć na rzecz niepodległego bytu Państwa Polskiego) (“the 1991 Act”) with the Warsaw Regional Court.
On 23 January 1998 the applicant sent a letter to the court, Minister of Justice and to the Ombudsman, asking for a hearing date to be set and for information. On 7 April 1998 the president of the Warsaw Regional Court informed him that the delay was caused by the fact that the court was inundated by a large number of similar applications.
On 5 July 1999 the Warsaw Regional Court held a hearing in the applicant's case. On the same date the court gave judgment and awarded compensation to the applicant.
On 18 November 1999 the applicant asked the court to pay the compensation. On 4 February 2000 the money was transferred to his bank account.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant domestic law is described in the judgment of Hałka v. Poland, no. 71891/01 §§15 and 16, 2 July 2002.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings in the Warsaw Regional Court exceeded a “reasonable time.”
THE LAW
On 31 March 2004 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 13,000 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.”
On 13 April 2004 the Court received the following declaration from the Polish 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 13,000 to Mr Tadeusz Kęczkowski. This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the decision by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Michael O'BoyleNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy