FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14118/05
by Aleksandra NOWACZYK
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Stanislav Pavlovschi,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi Bianku, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 March 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 observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Aleksandra Nowaczyk, is a Polish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Siemczyno. She is represented before the Court by Mr W. Lewandowski, a lawyer practising in Drawsko Pomorskie. The Polish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
From 1994 to 1996 the applicant cohabited with Z.W. Their relationship broke down as a result of Z.W.’s violent behaviour. In January 1997 the applicant entered into a contract for the purchase of a flat from the Czaplinek municipality in which she had previously been a tenant. On an unspecified date in 1997 Z.W. was convicted of domestic violence and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. In 1998 the applicant married K.N.
It appears that in August 2000 Z.W. started harassing her at the flat. She further submits that since Z.W.’s behaviour was becoming increasingly more aggressive she and her family were forced to leave her flat on an unspecified later date.
A. Proceedings concerning Z.W.’s eviction from the applicant’s flat
On 8 April 1999 the District Court ordered Z.W.’s eviction from the flat. On 4 July 2000 the District Court issued an enforcement order (tytuł wykonawczy) in favour of the applicant.
On 7 June 2004 the bailiff summoned Z.W. to require him to vacate the applicant’s flat. On 15 June 2004 the bailiff stayed the enforcement proceedings. On an unspecified later date Z.W. issued court proceedings against the Czaplinek municipality to establish his entitlement to welfare accommodation. On 22 December 2004 the Drawsko Pomorskie District Court gave judgment. It found for Z.W. and ordered that the enforcement of the eviction order be stayed until the Czaplinek municipality had found Z.W. welfare accommodation.
On 14 January 2005 the District Court issued an enforcement order (tytuł wykonawczy) in favour of Z.W. in respect of that judgment.
On 2 February 2005 the court bailiff stayed the enforcement proceedings on the basis of the judgment of 22 December 2004.
B. Proceedings concerning Z.W.’s deregistration
On an unspecified date in 1998 the applicant requested the Czaplinek Mayor to issue a decision on deregistration (wymeldowanie) of Z.W.’s permanent residence in her flat. On 16 June 1998 the Czaplinek Mayor refused to deregister Z.W., finding that he had not lost his entitlement to occupy the flat and that his absence from the flat was not permanent.
On an unspecified date in 2001 the applicant again requested the Czaplinek Mayor to issue a decision on deregistration of Z.W.’s permanent residence in her flat. On 21 August 2001 the Mayor issued a negative decision. It found that Z.W. in fact lived in the flat and since he had not vacated the property he could not be deregistered under the applicable legislation. On 19 October 2001 the Governor of the Zachodniopomorskie Region upheld the Czaplinek Mayor’s decision.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained, without invoking any provisions of the Convention, that she was unable to have the eviction order against Z.W. enforced. She submitted that she could not reside in her flat.
THE LAW
A. The procedure
By letter dated 12 January 2007 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 23 February 2007.
On 7 December 2007 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant wanted to withdraw the application. He submitted that on 5 December 2007 W.Z. had been evicted from the apartment and the applicant regained the possession of her flat.
The Government were informed about the applicant’s decision and presented no objection.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) 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 continued examination of the case. 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.
B. Costs and Expenses
The applicant claimed EUR 850 for legal costs and expenses. That sum included costs of representation before the Court and the costs of translation of the Government’s observations from English. She did not submit any documents in support of her claim.
The Government did not submit any comments on the applicant’s claims for costs and expenses
The Court has a discretion to award legal costs when it strikes out an application (Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court).
According to the Court’s case-law, an award can be made in respect of costs and expenses only in so far as they have been actually and necessarily incurred by the applicant and are reasonable as to quantum. The Court points out that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court “the applicant must submit itemised particulars of all claims, together with any relevant supporting documents failing which the Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part” (see Adamiak v. Poland, no. 20758/03, § 49, 19 December).
The Court notes that the applicant did not submit any supporting documents or particulars to substantiate her claims. Accordingly, the Court does not award any sum under this head.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases;
Dismisses the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses.
Lawrence EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy