CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 10 février 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s1C8B5CE1 { width:147.94pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .s5A070004 { width:213.96pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 10448/07 Agata KOWALCZYK against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10   February 2015 as a Chamber composed of:   Guido Raimondi, President,   George Nicolaou,   Ledi Bianku,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Faris Vehabović, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 February 2007, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 17 November 2014 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Ms Agata Kowalczyk, is a Polish national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Warsaw. She was represented before the Court by Mr J. Forystek, a lawyer practising in Cracow. 2.     The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     The land owned by applicant’s predecessor was expropriated by virtue of the Decree of 26   October 1945 on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw. 5.     On   12 July 1969 the Board of the Warsaw National Council ( Prezydium Rady Narodowej m.st. Warszawy ), dismissed the request to be granted the right of perpetual use of the property made by the applicant’s predecessor. 6.     On 20   June   1997 the applicant requested the Warsaw Governor ( Wojewoda Warszawski ) that the decision of 12 July 1969 be declared null and void. 7.     Afterwards, the proceedings were pending before various administrative authorities which dismissed the application. On one occasion, on 12 December 2002, the Supreme Administrative Court ( Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny ) quashed the previous decisions and remitted the case. In 2006 the proceedings were divided and the proceedings relating to plots of land nos. 95 and 96 were pending separately before different administrative authorities. 8.     As regards the proceedings concerning the plot of land no. 96, owned by the State Treasury, they are still pending before an administrative authority. In their course the administrative courts on three occasions quashed previous decisions for various legal reasons. 9.     In the second set of proceedings concerning the plot of land no. 95, owned by the Mazowsze Region, on 12   June   2008 the Warsaw Self ‑ Government Board of Appeal ( Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze ) declared the decision of 12   July   1969 null and void. 10.     Subsequently, the authorities had to examine anew the original application to grant the applicant’s predecessor the perpetual use of this part of the expropriated property. Those proceedings are also pending. 11.     Since 1997 the applicant made use of various remedies aiming at acceleration of the administrative proceedings. 12.     Before the Court, the applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article   6   §   1 of the Convention. 13.     The application was communicated to the Government. 14.     After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, by letter dated 17   November 2014, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. 15.     They acknowledged a violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention. They undertook to pay the applicant 40,000   Polish zlotys (PLN) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which 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. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the 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. They further requested the Court to strike out the application. 16.     On 12 December 2014, the Court received a letter from the applicant informing the Court that she was satisfied with the terms of the Government’s declaration. THE LAW 17.     The Court finds that following the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties. 18.     It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application. 19.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases pursuant to Article   39 of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 5 March 2015. Françoise Elens-Passos   Guido Raimondi   Registrar   President