FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33099/03
by Piotr KUBERSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 October 2003,
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 Piotr Kuberski, is a Polish national who was born in 1947 and lives in Hamburg.
The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
A. The circumstances of the case
1. Main proceedings
On 1 July 1999 the applicant lodged a motion for the dissolution of a co-ownership with the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).
Between 3 February 2000 and 22 January 2004 the Court scheduled some 6 hearings but most of them were adjourned for various reasons, such as the absence of the parties and the court expert.
In the meantime, on 25 April 2003, the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice (Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości) about the delays in the proceedings. His complaint was referred to the President of the Łódź Regional Court (Prezes Sądu Okręgowego). In a letter of 10 July 2003 the President acknowledged the delays and informed the applicant that the proceedings should be conducted without further delays.
In the course of the proceedings the court heard evidence from 2 witnesses and 2 expert reports were obtained.
On 10 June 2005 the Łódź District Court delivered its decision. It ruled in the applicant’s favour. However, he lodged an appeal motivated by the so-called “procedural precaution” (ostrożność procesowa). The other parties to the proceedings lodged their appeals, together with a motion for retrospective leave to appeal.
On 12 September 2006 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case for reconsideration. The proceedings are pending before the District Court.
2. The applicant’s complaint under the 2004 Act
On 4 January 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Łódź Regional Court 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”).
He sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Łódź District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of PLN 10,000.
On 18 March 2005 the Łódź Regional Court gave a decision in which it acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings before the Łódź District Court, finding that there had been a period of unjustified inactivity between 24 March 2000 and 6 February 2001. It awarded the applicant 2,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in just satisfaction. The court observed that the District Court could not be held responsible for any other delays in the proceedings.
Referring to the amount of just satisfaction, the court declared that having analysed the circumstances of the case and partly acknowledging the applicant’s complaint, the amount of money granted to him was adequate.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings. He also complained about the amount of just satisfaction he received for the breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6.
THE LAW
On 25 July 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Piotr Kuberski, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of 10,000 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 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 3 August 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Agent of the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay 10,000 Polish zlotys to Mr Piotr Kuberski 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 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 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.
T.L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy