FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 49718/06
by Urszula MARKIETA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21 October 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 27 November 2006,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Urszula Markieta, is a Polish national who was born in 1947 and lives in Warsaw. 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. Main proceedings
On 29 January 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). She sought a court ruling in a case concerning the management of common property (orzeczenie w przedmiocie czynności przekraczającej zakres zwykłego zarządu rzeczą wspólną).
The applicant has failed to specify the exact course of the proceedings between 1995 and 2004. However, as can be seen from the case file, the proceedings were stayed several times and, at the applicant's requests, resumed.
Between September 2004 and March 2006 the District Court held three hearings, two of which were adjourned (on 18 November 2005 and on 9 February 2006).
On 25 August 2006 the Warsaw District Court discontinued the proceedings.
On 27 September 2006 the applicant appealed. It appears that the proceedings are pending before the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).
2. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
On 13 March 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) 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”). She sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Warsaw District Court had been excessive and just satisfaction in the amount of PLN 10,000 (approximately EUR 2,500).
On 10 May 2006 the Warsaw Regional Court gave a decision in which it acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings, finding that there had been some periods of unjustified inactivity on the part of the Warsaw District Court, and awarded the applicant PLN 1,000 (approx. EUR 263) in just satisfaction. The court examined only the period after the entry into force of the 2004 Act that is after 17 September 2004, and did not take into consideration the overall period of the examination of the case by the Warsaw District Court. Referring to the amount of just satisfaction, the court found that the amount granted reflected the length of the periods of unjustified inactivity on the part of the District Court.
B. Relevant domestic law
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.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the excessive length of the proceedings in her case.
She also raised a complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, claiming that she had been unable to use her property during the proceedings.
THE LAW
On 2 September 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Jakub Wołąsiewicz, Agent of the Polish Government, declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 9,000 (nine thousand Polish zlotys) to Ms Urszula Markieta 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. 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 3 September 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Urszula Markieta, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN 9,000 (nine 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). 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