FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36055/06
by Jacek STRZODA and Others
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17 June 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 August 2006,
Having regard to the Court’s decision to examine jointly the admissibility and merits of the case (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Lucjan Strzoda, Ms Aurelia Strzoda and Mr Jacek Strzoda, are Polish nationals who were born in 1924, 1959 and 1957 respectively and live in Dinslaken, Germany, and Mikołów, Poland respectively. They are represented before the Court by Mr J. Rusecki, a lawyer practising in Katowice. 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
1. Main proceedings
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 9 December 1993 the applicants lodged with the Chorzów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a motion for the division of real property.
In July 1994 the Chorzów District Court appointed an expert. In February 1995 a report was submitted. In May 1995 the Chorzów District Court ordered that a supplementary report be obtained. In August 1995 the expert returned the case file to the court. Supplementary reports were made on unspecified dates in April 1996 and December 1996.
On 16 January 1997 the Chorzów District Court stayed the proceedings as one of the parties had died. They were resumed in September 1997.
In October 1997 the Chorzów District Court asked the expert to specify the market value of the property.
In March 1999 the Chorzów District Court asked the expert to prepare a new report, which was submitted to its registry on 30 December 1999. In March 2000 the court asked the expert to prepare another report. However, on an unspecified date the expert refused to do so, explaining that he did not have the necessary professional qualifications.
On 20 October 2000 the proceedings were stayed after the death of one of the parties and they were resumed on an unspecified date in June 2001. However, they were again stayed between 25 November 2003 and 8 June 2004 after the death of another party.
On 27 December 2004 the Chorzów District Court appointed a new expert to prepare a further report. It seems that in 2005 more experts were appointed and new parties joined the proceedings.
According to the applicants, hearings in the case were scheduled at very irregular intervals.
The proceedings are pending before the first-instance court.
2. The applicants’ complaint under the 2004 Act
On 1 February 2006 the applicants lodged with the Katowice Regional Court a complaint under section 5 of the Law on 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”) which entered into force on 17 September 2004. The applicants sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Chorzów District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. EUR 2,500).
On 16 March 2006 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed their complaint. The court relied on the factual and legal complexity of the case. The court also stated that the conduct of some of the parties, including the applicants, had contributed to the length of the proceedings. The court rejected the applicants’ argument that the hearings had been scheduled at irregular intervals.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings 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.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings.
Moreover, the applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the length of the proceedings has infringed their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.
THE LAW
On 22 April 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 30,000 to Ms Aurelia Strzoda, Mr Jacek Strzoda and Mr Lucjan Strzoda 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.”
On 25 April 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicants:
“We, Aurelia, Jacek and Lucjan Strzoda, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay us the sum of PLN 30,000 (thirty thousand 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.
We accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications. We declare that this constitutes a 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.
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