FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 34762/06
by Maria MAKOWSKA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 16 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Ján Šikuta,
Mihai Poalelungi,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 February 2006,
Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Maria Makowska, is a Polish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Szczecin. 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. Civil proceedings for acquisition of an inheritance
On 29 July 1986 the applicant lodged an action for acquisition of an inheritance with the Szczecin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).
On 26 January 1994 the Szczecin District Court transferred a part of the claim concerning ownership of a garage to another division of the court in order to resolve the dispute in contentious proceedings. The court stayed the proceedings as regards the remainder of the claim. On 24 June 1994 the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed that decision.
On 27 October 1997 the District Court gave a preliminary decision, granting the applicant the right to lease the garage. On 25 June 1998 the Regional Court amended the first-instance decision and granted her the right of ownership of the garage.
The case file was transferred back to the District Court in October 1998. It started its examination of the case in May 1999.Subsequently, several expert opinions were ordered. On 22 April 2002 the District Court gave a partial decision, distributing the inheritance among the heirs and staying the proceedings in so far as they concerned the ownership of the garage. The court referred to the fact that in 2000 the applicant had instituted a separate set of proceedings against the Szczecin Municipality for a formal declaration of ownership of the garage as the testator had possessed only a right of perpetual use of the land. At the time of delivery of the District Court’s decision those proceedings were still pending. On 6 December 2002 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision. On 22 December 2003 the applicant requested the court to resume the proceedings as the declaratory judgment on the question of ownership of the garage had become final on 13 November 2003.
On 6 April 2004 the court appointed an expert to assess the value of the garage. The opinion was submitted to the court in May 2004. The parties lodged several objections to the opinion. In December 2004 the expert submitted a supplementary opinion to the court. On 18 November 2004 the applicant requested the court to adjourn the next hearing because she was ill. On 2 February 2005 the court heard the expert. Two hearings were held and on 25 April 2005 the District Court gave a final decision in which it ruled on the applicant’s obligation to pay off the other heirs. On 29 December 2005 the Regional Court amended the first-instance decision, increasing the amount awarded to one of the parties.
2. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
In 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Szczecin Regional Court under the Act 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”).
On 23 January 2006 the Szczecin Regional Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that there had been no undue delay in the proceedings between the date of entry into force of the Act on 17 September 2004 and the date on which the applicant had lodged her complaint.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings for acquisition of an inheritance.
THE LAW
On 21 January 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 19,000 (nineteen thousand) to Ms Maria Makowska 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 23 January 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Maria Makowska, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN 19,000 (nineteen thousand) 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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