FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 16108/07
by Alojzy PRYŚKO
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9 February 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 March 2007,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Alojzy Pryśko, a Polish national who was born in 1942 and lives in Bolesławiec. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the refusal to appoint a lawyer for him with a view to filing a cassation appeal.
On 23 February 2009 and 22 December 2009 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 7,000 Polish zlotys to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. This sum will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. 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 undertook 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 LAW
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).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Lawrence EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy