CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 23 mars 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 } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 } .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 } .s97B7A20 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .sA13580DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s4FFB5796 { width:198.18pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 70206/01 by Józef KONIECZKA against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23   March 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 Mr M. O'Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 July 2000, Having regard to the parties' declarations on concluding a friendly settlement, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Józef Konieczka, is a Polish national who was born in 1932 and lives in Szczecin, Poland. The respondent Government were represented by their Agents 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. On 15 July 1993 the applicant lodged with the Szczecin Regional Court a civil action for payment against his step-son. The first hearing scheduled for 28 September 1994 was adjourned because of the absence of the defendant. Subsequently, the trial court held hearings on 12   April and 13   September   1995. In 1996 the Regional Court held in total four hearings. On 12 February and 30 April 1997 the court held hearings. The trial court ordered an expert opinion. On 7 June 1997 an expert submitted his opinion to the court. Between 1 May 1997 and 16 April 1998 no hearings were held. On 17 April and 3 July 1998 the court held hearings and closed the proceedings. It decided that the judgment would be given on 17   July   1998. At the hearing held on 9 December 1998 the court adjourned the delivery of the judgment. On 3 February 1999 the Szczecin Regional Court held a hearing and on 17   February 1999 it gave judgment. It dismissed the applicant's action. On 4 May 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment. The Poznań Court of Appeal held one hearing and on 22   February 2000 it dismissed the applicant's appeal. On 31 March 2000 the applicant's court-appointed lawyer informed him that he saw no grounds for lodging on his behalf a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal's judgment. The applicant did not lodge the cassation appeal and the Court of Appeal's judgment became final. COMPLAINT The applicant complained, inter alia , under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings. THE LAW On 14 January 2004 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   14,000 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 9 February 2004 the Court received the following declaration signed by the respondent Government:   “I declare that, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above ‑ mentioned case, the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 14,000 to Mr   Jozef Konieczka. This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the decision 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, 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. This payment will constitute the final resolution 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.   Michael O'Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President