FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14312/02
by Tomasz WILAND
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5 June 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 24 May 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 Tomasz Wiland, is a Polish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Warszawa. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Strumpf, a lawyer practising in Wrocław. 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.The first set of proceedings
On 13 July 1994 the applicant lodged a civil claim for compensation against the PeKaO S.A. Broker Office. Two hearings scheduled for 22 January 1996 and 30 September 1996 were adjourned due to the judge’s bad health. On 3 November 1997 the Warsaw District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.
On 16 April 1998 the Warsaw Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for re-consideration. Two hearings were adjourned because the defendant’s lawyer was on leave and, later on, on sick leave.
On 30 June 2000 the Warsaw District Court partly allowed the claim and awarded the applicant PLN 875 (ca. 220 EUR). Both parties appealed.
On 11 December 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed both appeals. A cassation appeal was not available as the amount of the claim did not exceed the statutory threshold of PLN 10,000.The second set of proceedings (letter of 4 December 2002)
On 17 September 1997 the applicant lodged a claim for payment with the Warsaw District Court against the State Treasury – the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The hearings in the case were held on 27 January 1998 (adjourned as the defendant’s lawyer had not had enough time to prepare for the case), 20 March 1998, 2 June 1998, 5 July 1999.
At the hearing of 28 April 2000 the Warsaw District Court decided to request the Poznań Regional Prosecutor to have access to the prosecution files concerning the Polish Securities and Exchange Commission’s notification of an offence related to the civil case. On 6 June 2000 the District Court forwarded the relevant request and reiterated it on 12 November 2001, but the Regional Prosecutor failed to reply.
Apparently the Warsaw District Court delivered a judgment on 13 May 2003, and the proceedings were terminated on 9 February 2005 by a judgment of the Warsaw Regional CourtThe proceedings under the 2004 Act
On 15 March 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court about the unreasonable length of the second set of proceedings, relying on section 18 of the Law of 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”).
In its letter of 31 March 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court informed the Government that the applicant had lodged a complaint under the transitional provision of section 18 of the 2004 Act.
On 12 April 2005 the European Court confirmed, at the request of the Government, that on 24 May 2001 the applicant had lodged with it a complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
On 20 June 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint about the unreasonable length of proceedings for failure to comply with the requirements laid down in section 5 of the 2004 Act. The court observed that the impugned proceedings had been terminated on 9 February 2005 by a judgment of the Regional Court, whereas section 5 required that the complaint be lodged while the proceedings in question were pending. The court did not refer to the applicant’s reliance on section 18 of the 2004 Act in his complaint or to the fact that he had lodged an application with the Court in 2001.
On 15 July 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against its decision of 20 June 2005 as no appeal lay against it.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of both sets of proceedings.
2. The applicant further complained about the ineffectiveness of the remedy provided by the 2004 Act.
THE LAW
On 11 July 2006 the Court decided to communicate the complaints to the Government.
On 30 October 2006 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Tomasz Wiland, the applicant, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of 20,000 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.”
On 26 April 2007 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 20,000 PLN to Mr Tomasz Wiland 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.”
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 and 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