FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 3494/02
by Janusz WASIELEWSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9 January 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 December 2001,
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 Wasielewski, is a Polish national who was born in 1947 and lives in Szczecin. He is represented before the Court by Mr Bartłomiej Sochański, a lawyer practising in Szczecin. The respondent Government are 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.Civil proceedings
On 31 March 1997 the applicant lodged an action with the Szczecin District Court against the manufacturer of his car, claiming replacement of the car due to defects in its construction.
On 16 April 1997 the Szczecin District Court referred the case to the Szczecin Regional Court. On 8 September 1997 the Szczecin Regional Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case and referred it to the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court. On 31 March 1998 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court estimated the value of the claim and referred the case to the Bielsko-Biała District Court, finding it competent to entertain the applicant’s action. The first hearing in the case was scheduled for 20 January 1999.
On 11 March 1999 the Bielsko-Biała District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The judgment with written grounds was served on the applicant on 31 May 1999.
On 4 June 1999 the applicant appealed against the judgment of 11 March 1999.
On 12 May 2000 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court quashed the judgment of 11 March 1999 on the grounds that the lower court had failed to examine the merits of the case and that the written grounds of the judgment were deficient. It remitted the case to the District Court for re-examination.
On 15 November 2002 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.
On 14 February 2003 the Regional Court dismissed his appeal. The judgment was apparently served on the applicant on 16 June 2003.
On 15 July 2003 he lodged a request to re-open the proceedings. His request was rejected on 16 September 2003.Proceedings under the provisions of the 2004 Act
On 17 February 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint, under section 18 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time, about the excessive length of the proceedings before the District Court and the Regional Court. In his complaint he informed the court that he had lodged an application with the Court while the proceedings were still pending and provided the date of the lodging of his application and its number.
On 16 March 2005 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings. The court observed that the impugned proceedings had been terminated on 14 February 2003 by the judgment of the Regional Court dismissing the applicant’s appeal. The court considered that the applicant had not complied with the provisions of section 5 of the 2004 Act because the impugned proceedings had already terminated when he lodged his complaint with the Regional Court. The court did not refer to the applicant’s reliance on section 18 in his complaint.
COMPLAINTSThe applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings in his case.The applicant also complained that the proceedings instituted under the 2004 Act were unfair because his complaint had been unjustifiably rejected by the domestic court, the court having disregarded that he was entitled, under section 18 of the Act, to have the merits of his length complaint examined.
THE LAW
On 11 April 2006 the Court decided to communicate the application to the Government.
On 3 November 2006 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Jakub Wołąsiewicz, Agent of the Government, declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay 10,000 PLN to Mr Janusz Wasielewski 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 22 November 2006 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Janusz Wasielewski, the applicant, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of 10,000 PLN 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 of this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties (Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
T.L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy