FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9075/08
by Artur LASKOWSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 16 December 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 February 2008,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Artur Laskowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Warszawa. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Jakub 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. Criminal proceedings.
On an unspecified date in 2001 the Warsaw prosecution authorities charged the applicant with misappropriation of goods.
On 19 February 2002 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Warsaw District Court.
Two hearings, scheduled on 30 April and 17 June 2002, were adjourned because the applicant was not escorted to the court from prison and hence failed to appear before the trial court.
At the same time the applicant was also charged with criminal offences in two separate sets of proceedings, pending before the Iława District Court and the Olsztyn Regional Court. For that reason he was transported, on an unspecified date, to Iława prison. The proceedings before the Iława District Court were terminated on 17 December 2004, whereas those before the Olsztyn Regional Court were completed on 19 May 2005.
On 26 January 2006 the Warsaw District Court appointed an expert in order to prepare a psychiatric opinion and adjourned the hearing.
The following hearing, scheduled on 10 March 2006, was adjourned.
On 11 April 2006 the court decided to place the applicant, for a period of six weeks, in a psychiatric institution for observation.
Subsequently, the trial court held hearings on 18 October, 28 November and 13 December 2006 and 23 January, 27 February, 20 March, 16 and 25 April, 18 May and 18 June 2007.
A hearing scheduled on 24 July 2007 was cancelled, due to the judge's absence.
Two hearings were held on 17 September and 9 October 2007.
On 8 November 2007 the court rejected an application by the applicant to have certain evidence examined.
On 15 November 2007 the Warsaw District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to one year of imprisonment.
2. Proceedings under the 2004 Act.
On 23 August 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court about a breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time in respect of the criminal proceedings against him and asked for just satisfaction. He relied on 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”), which entered into force on 17 September 2004.
On 20 November 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed his complaint. It noted that the trial court had not taken any action between June 2002 and December 2005, but stressed that throughout that period the applicant had been placed in a prison outside Warsaw, where he was transported to be tried in two sets of criminal proceedings. The Regional Court ruled that in any event the 2004 Act could not be applied to the protracted length of court proceedings occurring before its date of entry into force, that is, before 17 September 2004. Having analysed the conduct of the District Court between the date of the entry into force of the Act and the date on which the applicant had lodged his complaint, the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that there had been no undue delay in the proceedings.
On 29 November 2007 the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal.
On 13 December 2007 the applicant was informed, by the Warsaw Regional Court, that there was no further appeal available to him under the domestic law.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings.
THE LAW
On 8 September 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 9,800 to Mr Artur Laskowski 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 12 August 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Artur Laskowski, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN 9,800 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 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). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case 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