FOURTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
Application no. 72163/01
by Apolinary REKUS
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27 January 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrR. Maruste,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego , judges,
and Mrs F. Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 September 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, Mr Apolinary Rekus, is a Polish national who was born in 1935, and lives in Kamienica Polska, Poland. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 19 July 1991 the applicant lodged a motion with the Częstochowa Regional Court claiming the amount of PLZ (old zlotys) 40,000,000 from L.G. and the insurance company “PZU” as compensation in respect of a traffic accident caused by L.G.
The court held the hearings on 31 October 1991, 23 December 1991, 3 February 1992, 9 March 1992, 7 May 1992 and 12 June 1992.
By a partial judgment of 7 September 1992 the Częstochowa Regional Court ordered the defendants to pay PLZ 20,000,000 to the applicant.
Further hearings were held on 29 October 1992, 5 December 1992, 23 April 1993, 14 May 1993 and 4 June 1993.
On 19 January 1993 the court ordered an expert opinion.
The applicant extended his claim on 14 May 1993 and 4 June 1993.
By a judgment of 18 July 1993 the Częstochowa Regional Court ordered the defendants to pay PLZ 10,000,000 to the applicant.
By a judgment of 7 December 1993 the Katowice Court of Appeal in part upheld and in part quashed the judgment of 18 July 1993 and referred the case to the lower instance for reconsideration.
By a decision of 17 August 1994 the Częstochowa Regional Court ordered a further expert opinion.
The court held further hearings on 9 January 1995, 13 February 1995, 26 October 1995, 16 November 1995, 15 April 1996, 4 November 1996 and 13 October 1997.
On 20 January 1997 the court ordered another expert opinion.
On 31 August 1998 the court proposed a friendly settlement to the both parties to the proceedings, to no avail.
By a judgment of 11 January 1999 the Częstochowa Regional Court ordered the defendants to pay PLN 700 to the applicant. The applicant appealed.
On 22 March 2000 the Katowice Regional Court amended the first instance judgment and ordered the defendants to pay an additional amount of PLN 145,80 to the applicant. No cassation appeal lay against this judgment.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the compensation proceedings exceeded a reasonable time.
THE LAW
On 18 November 2003 the Court received the following declaration from the Polish Government:
“I declare that, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case the Government of Poland offer to pay 7.000 PLN to Mr Apolinary Rekus (application no. 72163/01). This sum shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and will be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the judgment by the Court pursuant to the Article 39 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
The Government further undertake not to request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention.”
On 21 November 2003 the Court received the following declaration from the applicant:
“I note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of 7.000 PLN 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 payment constitutes a final resolution of the case.
This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and I have reached.
I further undertake not to request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention after delivery of the Court’s judgment.”
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