FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 10002/05
by Maria MILITOWSKA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 December 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 January 2005,
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, Ms Maria Militowska, is a Polish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Kalisz. 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.
On 1 December 2000 the applicant lodged a claim for payment with the Kalisz Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).
On 19 January 2001 the Kalisz Regional Court referred the case to non-contentious proceedings (postępowanie nieprocesowe) and transmitted the case-file to the Kalisz District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). Although it was specifically required by the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court did not instruct the applicant, acting without a lawyer, on her right to appeal against the latter decision.
On 3 October 2002 the Kalisz District Court, after having examined a number of procedural issues, dismissed the applicant’s claim. It seems that one hearing was held.
According to the applicant, on 14 November 2002, instead of receiving the decision on the merits delivered on 3 October 2002, she was served with a decision of the Kalisz District Court, dated 23 May 2002, concerning a procedural issue. In consequence, she failed to lodge in time her appeal against the decision of 3 October 2002.
On 4 April 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal, alleging that the proceedings were null and void (nieważność postępowania) on account of the erroneous referral of her case to non-contentious proceedings and the breach of her right to a fair trial. She also applied for retrospective leave to appeal out of time against the decision of 3 October 2002. She alleged that the Kalisz District Court had committed a procedural error when serving the first-instance decision.
On 4 October 2003 the Łódź Regional Court quashed the decision of 3 October 2002, declared the first-instance proceedings null and void and referred the case to contentious proceedings (postępowanie procesowe).
On 8 January 2004 the Kalisz Regional Court ordered the applicant to comply with formal requirements in her statement of claim lodged on 1 December 2000.
After an examination of a number of procedural issues, at the second hearing on 7 July 2004 the Kalisz Regional Court appointed an expert accountant.
On 29 April 2005 the applicant concluded a friendly settlement with the defendant.
On 21 October 2004 the applicant lodged with the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) a complaint 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”) which entered into force on 17 September 2004. The applicant sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Kalisz Regional Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. EUR 2,500).
On 1 December 2004 the Łódź Court of Appeal dismissed her complaint. The court examined the course of the impugned proceedings and held that there were no delays for which the Regional Court could be held responsible, although it admitted that the Regional Court was responsible for the erroneous referral of the applicant’s case to non-contentious proceedings.
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.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
On 9 November 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Jakub Wołąsiewicz, Agent of the Government, declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay ex gratia PLN 10,000 to Ms Maria Militowska 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 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 the same day the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Maria Militowska, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of PLN 10,000 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 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).
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.
T.L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy