CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 27 janvier 2004

.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 } .sB5042342 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:108pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s701081D1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCD369DB { width:21.33pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s70FAF3C6 { width:22.01pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s36C0C433 { width:16.01pt; text-indent:0pt; 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 } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9922FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9C230781 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .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 } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .sE8AB5E19 { width:28.69pt; display:inline-block } .sEDEADA37 { width:146.63pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s6C2D746E { width:198.98pt; display:inline-block }          FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 62108/00 by Andrzej NAPIÓRKOWSKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27   January 2004 as a Chamber composed of   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Mrs   E. Fura-Sandström, judges , and   Mrs   F . Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 January 2000, Having regard to the decision to apply the procedure under Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Andrzej Napiórkowski, is a Polish national   who was born in 1959 and lives in Gdańsk, Poland. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Facts before 1   May   1993 The applicant’s mother and father died in 1967 and 1975, respectively. On 21   May   1976 the Gdańsk District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) declared that the applicant and his step-mother were to inherit the estate. On 15   November   1979 the applicant filed an application for distribution of the estate with the Gdańsk District Court. On 27   November   1981 the court delivered a partial decision ( postanowienie częściowe ). The applicant appealed. On 23   February   1982 the Gdańsk Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) upheld this decision. On 4   July   1983, on an appeal lodged by the Prosecutor General, the Supreme Court ( Sąd Najwyższy ) quashed both decisions and remitted the case to the court of first instance. In the course of the subsequent proceedings the court held thirty six hearings. It also obtained five expert reports and heard evidence from a number of witnesses. 2.     Facts after 1   May   1993 Between 29   April   1993 and 26   October   1993 the Gdańsk District Court held eight hearings. On 26   October   1993 the court delivered a decision. The applicant appealed. On 20   April   1994 the Gdańsk Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case. The court held hearings on 21   July and 10   October   1994. At the hearing held on 27   June   1995 the court heard evidence form the parties. Further hearings were held on 28   September and 11   December 1995. In 1996 the trial court held five hearings and heard evidence from eight witnesses. A hearing listed for 28   November   1996 was adjourned due to the absence of two witnesses. Between 30   January and 16   October   1997 the court held six hearings and heard evidence from several witnesses. On 26   November   1997 an inspection of the site took place. On 2   March and 7   April   1998 two experts submitted additional reports to the District Court. Between 5   June and 27 August 1998 the court held six hearings. On 17   September   1998 the District Court delivered a decision. On 28   December   1999 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s further appeal. On 20   April   2000 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal. The proceedings were terminated by the decision of the Supreme Court of 22   May   2002. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings in his case had exceeded a reasonable time. THE LAW On 25   July   2003 the Court received from the Polish Government a declaration that read, in so far as relevant: “I declare that, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case, the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 20,000 to Mr Andrzej Napiórkowski. 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....” On 18   September   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   20,000 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. This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and I have reached....” 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