FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 8158/06
by Janusz OLEWIŃSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 September 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, Mr Janusz Olewiński, is a Polish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Siedlce.
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. Proceedings for compensation
On 25 April 1996 the applicant filed an action against the State Treasury with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki). He claimed compensation and sickness benefits for bodily injuries and health problems resulting from his internment in 1981, during the state of war.
On 1 April 1997 the case was transferred to the Regional Court in Siedlce, where the defendant authority was located.
On an unspecified date in January 1998 the Siedlce Regional Court transferred the case to the Elbląg Regional Court, since the defendant authority responsible for the applicant’s internment was located there.
On 14 May 1998 the Elbląg Regional Court gave judgment dismissing the application on the grounds that it was time-barred. On 10 June 1998 the applicant appealed.
On 21 October 1998 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 5 March 1999 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal.
On 16 January 2002 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) quashed the lower courts’ judgments and remitted the case to the Elbląg Regional Court.
On 12 November 2002 the experts filed their opinions with the Elbląg Regional Court. On 12 December 2003 the court gave judgment and granted the applicant compensation from the State Treasury. However, the court dismissed the applicant’s claim concerning sickness benefits.
On 2 March 2004 the applicant appealed. On 25 February 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal gave judgment. The amount of compensation awarded to the applicant was reduced.
On 15 April 2005 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal. On 24 November 2005 a single judge of the Supreme Court sitting in camera dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as being manifestly ill-founded.
2. The applicant’s complaint under the 2004 Act
On 26 February 2005 the applicant filed with the Supreme Court a complaint about the excessive length of proceedings in his case under the ActLaw of 17 June 2004 (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
On 27 April 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The Gdańsk Court of Appeal held that the 2004 Act was applicable only to pending proceedings, whereas the proceedings before the Elbląg Regional Court had ended on 12 December 2003.
On 25 April 2005 the applicant filed with the Supreme Court a complaint about the length of proceedings before the Gdańsk Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
On 7 June 2005 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s complaint. The court referred to the fact that the applicant had failed to produce concrete evidence of delays in the proceedings. It also held that the 2004 Act was applicable only to pending proceedings, whereas the proceedings before the Gdańsk Court of Appeal had ended on 25 February 2005. The Supreme Court did not examine the length of the cassation proceedings.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, 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 and the judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the unfairness of the proceedings.
2. He also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the excessive length of the proceedings.
3. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that his complaint lodged under the 2004 Act was not an effective remedy in respect of the alleged violation of the reasonable time requirement.
THE LAW
On 27 February 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Janusz Olewiński, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of 12,000 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 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.”
On 3 March 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Agent of the Government:
“I, Jakub Wołąsiewicz, Agent of the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 12,000 to Mr Janusz Olewiński 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 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.”
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.
Fatoş AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy