FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 62108/00
by Andrzej NAPIÓRKOWSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27 January 2004 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrR. Maruste,
MrL. Garlicki,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström, judges,
and Mrs F. Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 January 2000,
Having regard to the decision to apply the procedure under Article 29 § 3 of the Convention,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Andrzej Napiórkowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Gdańsk, Poland.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Facts before 1 May 1993
The applicant’s mother and father died in 1967 and 1975, respectively. On 21 May 1976 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) declared that the applicant and his step-mother were to inherit the estate. On 15 November 1979 the applicant filed an application for distribution of the estate with the Gdańsk District Court.
On 27 November 1981 the court delivered a partial decision (postanowienie częściowe). The applicant appealed. On 23 February 1982 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) upheld this decision. On 4 July 1983, on an appeal lodged by the Prosecutor General, the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) quashed both decisions and remitted the case to the court of first instance.
In the course of the subsequent proceedings the court held thirty six hearings. It also obtained five expert reports and heard evidence from a number of witnesses.
2. Facts after 1 May 1993
Between 29 April 1993 and 26 October 1993 the Gdańsk District Court held eight hearings.
On 26 October 1993 the court delivered a decision. The applicant appealed. On 20 April 1994 the Gdańsk Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case.
The court held hearings on 21 July and 10 October 1994. At the hearing held on 27 June 1995 the court heard evidence form the parties.
Further hearings were held on 28 September and 11 December 1995.
In 1996 the trial court held five hearings and heard evidence from eight witnesses.
A hearing listed for 28 November 1996 was adjourned due to the absence of two witnesses.
Between 30 January and 16 October 1997 the court held six hearings and heard evidence from several witnesses.
On 26 November 1997 an inspection of the site took place.
On 2 March and 7 April 1998 two experts submitted additional reports to the District Court.
Between 5 June and 27 August 1998 the court held six hearings.
On 17 September 1998 the District Court delivered a decision. On 28 December 1999 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s further appeal.
On 20 April 2000 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal. The proceedings were terminated by the decision of the Supreme Court of 22 May 2002.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings in his case had exceeded a reasonable time.
THE LAW
On 25 July 2003 the Court received from the Polish Government a declaration that read, in so far as relevant:
“I declare that, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case, the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 20,000 to Mr Andrzej Napiórkowski. This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable within three months.... This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case....”
On 18 September 2003 the Court received a declaration signed by the applicant that read, in its relevant part:
“I note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN 20,000 covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts of this application. I declare that this constitutes a final settlement of the case.
This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and I have reached....”
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.
Françoise Elens-PassosNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy