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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4AD8A65C { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA839E164 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .sDEA786DA { width:210.67pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 58778/00 by Roman NOWAK 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 27 April 1999, Having regard to the parties’ declarations on concluding a friendly settlement, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Roman Nowak, is a Polish national who was born in 1933 and lives in Jelenia Góra, Poland. The respondent Government were represented by Mr K. Drzewicki, and, subsequently, by Mr   J.   Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In November 1992 the applicant underwent three surgeries in the Wrocław Regional Hospital ( Wojewódzki Szpital Specjalistyczny ). On 15 July 1996 the applicant lodged with the Wrocław Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) a claim for damages against the State Treasury - Wrocław Regional Hospital. He claimed that he was a victim of medical malpractice because after the surgery carried out in 1992 an object was left in his body which led to an additional surgery and caused suffering and general deterioration of his health. On 12 December 1996 the court held the first hearing. At the second hearing held on 13 January 1997 the trial court ordered an expert opinion. Subsequently, the court ordered several new medical expert opinions. On 8 April 1998 the applicant complained to the President of the Wrocław Regional Court about the delay in the proceedings. On 20 October 1999 the court held the third hearing. The next hearing scheduled for 27 March 2001 was adjourned due to the applicant’s illness. At the hearing held on 24 May 2001 the court heard the applicant and appointed for him a legal-aid lawyer. On 1 October 2001 the Wrocław Regional Court held a hearing and on 22   October 2001 it gave judgment. The applicant did not appeal against it and the judgment became final. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings. THE LAW On 17 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   15,000 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...” On 3 November 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 15,000 to Mr Roman Nowak. 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.” The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties. 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). Accordingly, the case should be 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