FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 24579/07
by Arkadiusz STANNY
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3 November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 May 2007,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Arkadiusz Stanny, is a Polish national who was born in 1973 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Piotrków Trybunalski prison. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
On 4 August 2006 the Łódź Regional Court convicted the applicant of several counts of robbery and sentenced him to 6 years’ imprisonment. On 11 January 2007 the Łódź Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance judgment.
On a later unknown date the court assigned a legal‑aid lawyer to file a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. In a letter to the court dated 23 February 2007 the lawyer stated that he had found no grounds on which to prepare a cassation appeal in the applicant’s case. The court did not inform the applicant of his further procedural rights.
COMPLAINTSThe applicant complained about the outcome and unfairness of the proceedings, in particular that the courts dealing with his case had wrongly established the facts and assessed the evidence.The applicant further complained that he had been denied an effective access to the Supreme Court because the lawyer had refused to prepare a cassation appeal in his case.
THE LAW
On 31 July 2009 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Arkadiusz STANNY, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of 4,500 (four thousand five hundred 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. 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. 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 19 September 2009 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 4,500 (four thousand five hundred Polish zlotys) to Mr Arkadiusz Stanny 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 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 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 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.
Fatoş AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy