European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 2863/06
by Adam CIECHANOWSKI
against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 16 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Ján Šikuta,
Mihai Poalelungi,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 September 2002,

Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Adam Ciechanowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1943 and lives in Kraków. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were 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. Civil proceedings for dissolution of co-ownership

On 11 February 1993 the applicant lodged an action for the dissolution of a co-ownership. Hearings were held on 25 June 1993, 22 September 1993 and 14 January 1994. Hearings scheduled for 16 March 1994, 21 October 1994 and 28 December 1994 were adjourned because the summons had been sent to the wrong address and due to the absence of a witness.

Further hearings were held on 3 March 1995 and 20 September 1995. On 18 October 1995 the Cracow District Court ordered an expert to submit an opinion regarding a plan for the distribution of the property. On 29 March 1996 the court heard the expert and ordered a supplementary opinion. On 17 April 1998 the court admitted in evidence a further expert opinion.

On 15 December 1999 the court heard an expert. On 18 December 1999 the court ordered a supplementary opinion. On 11 October 2000 the applicant requested the court to stay the proceedings as he wanted to delimit one of the boundaries of the property in order to facilitate the distribution of the property. On 29 November 2000 the court stayed the proceedings. On 5 September 2001 the applicant requested the court to resume the proceedings.

On 7 November 2001 the court resumed the proceedings and ordered an inspection of the property on 27 November 2001. The inspection was adjourned until 5 April 2002 due to bad weather conditions.

On 24 May 2002 the court summoned the applicant to submit an updated extract from the mortgage and land register, but the applicant failed to do so. In consequence, on 19 August 2002 the court stayed the proceedings. On 30 September 2002 the District Court resumed the proceedings and ordered a further expert opinion. Further hearings were held on 17 March 2003, 14 July 2003, 8 October 2003 and on 18 March 2004.

On 28 April 2004 the presiding judge resigned and another judge was appointed to replace him on 21 May 2004.

On 17 July 2004 the two parties informed the court that they had sold their shares of the property to other persons. The applicant submitted that the proceedings were pending.

2. Proceedings under the 2004 Act

On 29 September 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Cracow Regional Court under section 5 of the Act of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (“the 2004 Act”). He also claimed just satisfaction in the amount of PLN 10,000 (approx. EUR 2,500).

On 3 November 2004 the Cracow Regional Court dismissed the length complaint. Although the court found that the proceedings had lasted a very long time, it concluded that this had not amounted to “excessive length” as defined by the 2004 Act. The court found that the proceedings had been handled properly and the delays had been attributable to the parties to the proceedings rather than to the court.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.

THE LAW

On 19 March 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 15,000 (fifteen thousand) to Mr Adam Ciechanowski 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. 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.”

On 25 March 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“I, Adam Ciechanowski, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN 15,000 (fifteen thousand) 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.”

The Court 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 (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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.

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza 
Registrar President