CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 2 décembre 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4E8A404A { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s38747C79 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sFC77BA53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s67017A4B { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s527A9694 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sDB3D064B { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sA4E595F3 { width:160.78pt; display:inline-block } .sCAE00017 { width:190.66pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 9348/02 by Marian KISIELEWICZ against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2   December 2003 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego, judges , and   Mrs     F. Elens-passos , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 February 2002, Having regard to the decision to apply the procedure under Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, Having regard to the parties’ declarations on concluding a friendly settlement, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Marian Kisielewicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1923 and lives in Leżajsk, Poland. The respondent Government were represented by Mr K. Drzewicki, and, subsequently, by Ms S. Jaczewska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. A.     Facts prior to 1 May 1993 On 10 February 1988 the applicant instituted non-contentious proceedings ( postępowanie nieprocesowe ) with the Leżajsk District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy w Leżajsku ) in which he requested that the co-ownership of the property left by his late brother be dissolved. On 20 March 1989 the Leżajsk District Court gave a decision. It dissolved co-ownership according to the applicant’s application. The applicant’s other brother appealed against this decision. On 21 June 1989 the Rzeszów Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki w Rzeszowie ) quashed the impugned decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court. On 25 December 1990 the Leżajsk District Court stayed the proceedings. B.     Facts after 30 April 1993 On 27 March 1995 the court resumed the proceedings. On 5 July 1995 the Leżajsk District Court gave a preliminary decision ( postanowienie wstępne ). On 20   October 1995 the Rzeszów Regional Court dismissed the appeal against the preliminary decision. On 14 February 1997 the Leżajsk District Court gave a decision. It dissolved the co-ownership of the estate. Both parties appealed. On 22 December 1998 Rzeszów Regional Court gave a decision. It dismissed the applicant’s appeal and partly amended the decision of the first-instance court. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court ( Sąd Najwyższy ). On 30 August 2001 the Supreme Court refused to entertain that cassation appeal. COMPLAINT The applicant complained, inter alia , under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of civil proceedings. THE LAW On 28 October 2003 the Court received a declaration signed by the respondent Government that read, in its relevant part: “I declare that, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case, the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 16,000 to Mr Marian Kisielewicz. This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable within three months... This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay, until settlement, simple interest on the amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points....” On 30 October 2003 the Court received a declaration signed by the applicant that read, in its relevant part: “I note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN   16,000 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 constitutes a final settlement 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. 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-Passos   Nicolas Bratza       Deputy Registrar   President