FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 2967/05
by Zdzisław KORNACKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 December 2004,
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 Zdzisław Kornacki, is a Polish national who was born in 1945 and lives in Radzymin. 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 the acquisition of inheritance
On 6 July 1990 the applicant lodged a motion for acquisition of an inheritance.
On 23 October 1998 the applicant requested the President of the Wołomin District Court to accelerate the proceedings. He relied on his earlier letters of 24 May 1996 and of 6 February 1996, in which he had already complained of the court’s inactivity.
From further documents it emerges that the President of the District Court did not reply to the applicant’s requests.
On 19 February 1999 the Wołomin District Court gave a decision, which was challenged by the applicant and by one of the parties to the proceedings.
On 28 February 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court partly amended the first-instance decision. Three parties to the proceedings lodged a cassation appeal.
On 13 November 2002 the Supreme Court remitted the case. The proceedings are pending before the Regional Court.
2. The applicant’s complaint about the length of proceedings
On 18 February 2005 the applicant filed with the Supreme Court a complaint about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and asked for compensation. He relied on 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”). He complained that in the proceedings before the District Court of the 60 hearings listed 30 had been adjourned and that his case had been pending for 2 years and 4 months before the Supreme Court.
On 2 March 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court asked the applicant whether he wished to complain about the excessive length of the proceedings before the Regional or District Court referring to the fact that different courts were competent to entertain his length complaints relating to different stages of the proceedings. The Court also allowed the applicant a 3-day time-limit for his reply, ordering that should he fail to do so, his complaint would be examined only in so far as it concerned the excessive length before the Regional Court. This letter was served on the applicant on 7 March 2005.
On the same day the applicant replied that his complaint concerned the excessive length of the proceedings as a whole before all the courts which had examined his case and asked that the excessive length before the District Court, the Regional Court and the Supreme Court be acknowledged.
Subsequently, on an unspecified date, the Supreme Court severed the applicant’s length complaint and referred it to the Regional Court to examine the length before the District Court and to the Court of Appeal to examine the length before the Regional Court. The Supreme Court was to examine the length of the proceedings before the Court of Appeal. It appears that the Supreme Court relied on section 4 of the 2004 Act which provides that the complaint should be examined by the court immediately above the court conducting the impugned proceedings.
On 12 April 2005 the Supreme Court rejected the length complaint on procedural grounds as it had not been lodged by a lawyer, which is a requirement for such complaints being dealt with by the Supreme Court.
On 20 May 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the length complaint, holding that the proceedings had indeed lasted a very long time. This, however, had not amounted to an “excessive length” as defined by the 2004 Act. The Court of Appeal found that the proceedings had been handled properly and the delays had been attributable to the parties to the proceedings rather than to the court.
The applicant informed the Registry that, in so far as the proceedings had been conducted by the District Court, the Regional Court had not entertained his length complaint.
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 and the judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
On 26 February 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 25,000 (twenty five thousand Polish zlotys) to Mr Zdzisław Kornacki 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.”
On 27 February 2008 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 25,000 (twenty five 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 and 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.”
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.
Lawrence EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy