CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 12 juin 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 } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s36FD8351 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s11A29832 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s9D5ED0F7 { width:218.78pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 11123/02 by Ewa BŁACHNIO against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 12   June 2007 as a Chamber composed of: Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Ms   L. Mijović ,   Mr   J. Šikuta ,   Mrs   P. Hirvelä, judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 September 2001, 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 Ewa Błachnio, is a Polish national who was born in 1943 and lives in Garwolin. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, 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 16 August 1989 the applicant filed a motion with the Garwolin District Court for the division of property between her and her former husband from whom she had been divorced since 29 July 1988 and who had died in February 1989. On 20 May 1994 the motion was dismissed on the ground that the applicant had not requested the division of the property in the divorce proceedings and had not lodged property claims until her former husband’s death. After his death it had become impossible to establish the assets which had constituted the marital property. The Siedlce Regional Court quashed this decision on 27 September 1994 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination. On 31 August 1995 the Garwolin District Court stayed the proceedings. The applicant appealed. On 25 September 1995 the Garwolin District Court quashed its previous decision and the proceedings were resumed. On 26 August 1998 the District Court gave a preliminary ruling on the composition of the property in question. The ruling was quashed on 10   December 1998 by the Siedlce Regional Court which remitted the issue for reconsideration. On 20 December 2000 the Garwolin District Court decided on the division of the property. The applicant appealed. On 30 March 2001 the Siedlce Regional Court amended the judgment of 20 December 2000 and ruled on the division of property between the applicant and her late husband.   COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the civil proceedings in her case. THE LAW On 26 March 2006 the Court decided to communicate the application to the Government. On 18 December 2006 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “ I, Ewa Błachnio, the applicant, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of 15,000 Polish zlotys 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. It will be 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 giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case”.   On 5 January 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I, Jakub Wołąsiewicz, Agent of the Government before the ECHR, declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay 15,000 PLN to Ms Ewa Błachnio 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, 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. It will be 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 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, 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