FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 53267/99
by Stefania OLEŚ
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 December 2001 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrA. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrsE. Palm,
MrJ. Makarczyk,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrS. Pavlovschi, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged with the Court on 15 April 1999 and registered on 9 December 1999,
Having regard to the written submissions of the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Stefania Oleś, is a Polish national, who was born in 1925 and lives in Miedziana Góra, Poland.
The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Krzysztof Drzewicki, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant’s husband died on 8 March 1983. On 23 April 1986 the Kielce District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision declaring that the estate of the applicant’s husband be inherited by the applicant and her two daughters, T.K. and S.P.
On 6 December 1988 T.K. (hereinafter “the petitioner”) filed an application for distribution of the estate with the Kielce District Court.
Prior to 28 February 1991 the court held a number of hearings and ordered that an expert report be obtained.
On 28 February 1991 the applicant requested the District Court to stay the proceedings. The court granted her request on 15 March 1991. It appears that the court subsequently resumed the proceedings.
On 3 March 1992 the court stayed the proceedings as the petitioner had failed to secure an advance payment for an expert report. The applicant herself secured that payment. Subsequently, on 7 May 1992, she requested the court to resume the proceedings. On 1 August 1992 the court resumed them.
On 3 August 1992 the court again stayed the proceedings because M.K., a party to the proceedings, had died. On 25 August 1992 the applicant submitted to the court information about the heirs of M.K. and requested that the proceedings be resumed. It appears that subsequently the court granted her request.
On 26 October 1992 the court summoned the petitioner to produce certain documents and to secure an advance payment for an expert report. On 9 February 1993 the court stayed the proceedings due to the petitioner’s failure to comply with the order of 26 October 1992. Later, the applicant secured the advance payment for the petitioner. On 18 March 1993 she requested the court to resume the proceedings. It appears that the court granted her request.
On 7 September 1993 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. A hearing listed for 29 June 1994 was adjourned sine die. The next hearing listed for 8 December 1994 was adjourned as the expert had failed to appear before the court. On 26 January 1995 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from the parties. It ordered the Łopuszna Co-operative Bank to produce certain documents. On 3 March 1995 the court held a hearing.
On 25 May 1995 the court closed the case and informed the parties that the decision would be delivered on 8 June 1995. On 8 June 1995 the court decided to deliver the decision on 22 June 1995. On 22 June 1995 the court reopened the examination of the case and adjourned the trial sine die. It instructed the parties to file pleadings.
On 3 January 1996 the court ordered the Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to produce certain documents. The hearings listed for 4 and 25 March 1996 were adjourned. On 6 May 1996 the court adjourned a hearing and ordered the parties to produce documentary evidence. A hearing listed for 13 June 1996 was adjourned. On 22 June 1996 the court held a hearing. On 14 August 1996 the court adjourned a hearing at the request of the petitioner’s lawyer. On 26 September 1996 the court adjourned the trial sine die and ordered that an expert report be obtained.
On 22 January 1997 the court adjourned the trial and instructed the parties to submit their pleadings within a certain time-limit. On 28 February 1997 the court adjourned the hearing. On 2 April 1997 the court ordered an additional expert report.
From 11 August 1997 to 26 September 1998 the court adjourned nine hearings. On 3 March 1998 the court ordered that an expert report be obtained.
On 5 January 1999 S.P., a party to the proceedings, challenged the judge rapporteur. On 27 January 1999 the District Court dismissed that challenge. On 8 July 1999 the court held a hearing. On 16 July 1999 the District Court gave a preliminary decision (postanowienie wstępne). The applicant lodged a notice of appeal. It appears that the proceedings are pending.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings.
THE LAW
On 14 June 2001 the Court decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.
On 2 November 2001 the Court received the following declaration from the respondent Government:
“I declare that the Government of the Republic of Poland offer to pay to Ms Stefania OLEŚ a sum of 10 000 (ten thousand) PLN with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the application no. 53267/99 pending before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. This sum shall cover any eventual pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable to the applicant after signing the declarations by the parties concerned, however not later than three months after the notification of the decision delivered by the Court pursuant to Article 39 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
I declare at the same time that the offer of the above-mentioned amount has been made in connection with duration of the proceedings in the applicant’s case before the organs of the Polish judiciary.
This declaration does not entail any acknowledgement by the Government of a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights in the present case.
I further undertake not to request the reference of the case to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the European Convention.”
On 20 November 2001 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I note hereby that the Government of the Republic of Poland are prepared to pay to me a sum of 10 000 (ten thousand) PLN covering any eventual pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the application no. 53267/99 pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case under the terms stipulated in the Declaration of the Government Agent.
I further undertake not to request the reference of the case to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the European Convention.”
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 case should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the case out of the list.
Michael O’BoyleNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy