CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 20 mars 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB72B0293 { width:1.66pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9DAED311 { width:4.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s988562EE { width:30.55pt; display:inline-block } .sCD43AF66 { width:217.12pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 16658/04 by Krystyna SZYMANOWICZ against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 20   March 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mr   K. Traja ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Ms   L. Mijović, judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 April 2004, 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, Ms Krystyna Szymanowicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Kórnik. She is represented before the Court by Ms   Joanna Jędrzejak, a lawyer practising in Poznań. 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. 1.   Proceedings on the merits of the case In 1993 the applicant inherited 4/5 and her sister 1/5 of an estate consisting of, inter alia, land and buildings. On 9 July 1993 the applicant lodged with the Poznań District Court a motion for division of that estate. On 9 August 1993 she was partly exempted from court fees. Hearings were scheduled for 3 November 1993, 17 December 1993, 2   February 1994 (adjourned for examination of an interlocutory appeal lodged by one of the participants), 16 December 1994 and 10 February 1995. On 10 February 1995 the court found that it lacked jurisdiction ratione loci and in April 1995 it transferred the case to the Środa Wielkopolska District Court. On 20 September 1995 the latter court decided to schedule a hearing in the case for 18 October 1995, but it was postponed due to the judge’s illness until 23 November 1995. On 23 November 1995 one witness was heard. On 20 December 1995 the court admitted evidence from an expert. On 18 February 1996 the applicant’s motion for a full exemption from court fees was dismissed. On 14 May 1996 the court stayed the proceedings, since the parties had failed to pay the costs of the expert opinion. On 14 September 1996 the Poznan Regional Court quashed the decision to stay the proceedings. On 17 February 1998 the expert submitted his opinion regarding the value of the property concerned. On 25 May 1998 the expert was heard by the court. No hearing was held until 12 April 1999 when a motion to appoint another expert was dismissed. Subsequent hearings were scheduled for 10   May and 7 June 1999 when the parties and one witness were heard. On 27 June 1999 the court ordered the expert to prepare a supplementary opinion on the valuation of the property. No action was taken until 19 July 2000 when the court appointed another expert to prepare an opinion on the possible division of the property. The opinion was submitted on 20 April 2001. On 13 August 2001 a hearing was held. The parties presented their submissions to the court. On 27 February 2002 a further opinion was ordered, which was submitted to the court in October 2002. Two hearings scheduled for 12 April 2003 and 7 May 2003 were not held, apparently due to the registry’s failure to put them on the court’s timetable. On 25 June 2003 one witness was heard. A hearing scheduled for 13   August 2003 was adjourned. On 29 October 2003 the parties presented their new submissions. On 26 November 2003 the court decided to admit another opinion of an expert. The applicant appealed against this decision. Her appeal was dismissed by the Regional Court on 18 June 2004. On 6 December 2004 the court issued a decision concerning the expert’s remuneration. On 7 February 2005 the expert submitted his opinion. The proceedings are still pending before the District Court. 2.   Proceedings under the 2004 Act On 11 February 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint under the 2004 Act about the excessive length of the proceedings with the Regional Court. By a decision of 21 March 2005 the Poznan Regional Court confirmed that the proceedings had indeed been lengthy. The court took into consideration the whole period from the date of instituting the proceedings. It found that although the case was complex, the District Court lacked diligence in its examination; that there had been frequent changes in the composition of the court; that there had been long periods of inactivity; that hearings had been adjourned several times for unknown reasons. It also noted that the applicant had only slightly contributed to the length of proceedings by lodging appeals against decisions concerning the expert’s opinion, but that this had had no decisive bearing on the overall length of the proceedings. The court considered that an award of PLN   2,000 would be adequate. The court refrained from giving any instructions to the lower court as to the further conduct of the proceedings. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 §1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings in her case. THE LAW On 7 July 2006 the Court decided to communicate the application to the Government. On 23 November 2006 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I, Krystyna Szymanowicz, the applicant, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of 18,000 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 5 February 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 18,000 PLN to Ms Krystyna Szymanowicz 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 or 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. Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President