FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 22020/06
by Dariusz LIS
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7 October 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 April 2006,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Dariusz Lis, is a Polish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Kamińsk. 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.  First set of proceedings against the applicant
On 29 January 1999 the applicant was indicted on charges of extortion of money committed with an accomplice.
On 14 December 1999 the Gdynia District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to five years' imprisonment suspended for four years. The co-accused was acquitted.
On 14 March and 20 March 2000 the District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) and subsequently the applicant lodged appeals against the District Court judgment.
On 19 September 2000 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Gdynia District Court.
The hearing scheduled for 12 February 2000 was adjourned because of changes in the composition of the court. On 1 February 2001 the case was transmitted to another judge. That judge fell ill and on 11 February 2003 the case was transmitted to a third judge. The first hearing was scheduled for 15 September 2003.
Subsequent hearings were adjourned because it was not possible to transport the applicant and his co-accused from prison, or owing to the absence of witnesses. The hearings of 8 March, 22 November, 27 December 2004 and 8 June 2005 were adjourned on account of the illness of one of the lay judges.
On 29 August 2005 the Gdynia District Court sentenced the applicant and the co-accused to three years' imprisonment suspended for four years.
The applicant and the co-accused appealed.
On 24 May 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court acquitted the applicant and the co-accused.
2.  The applicant's complaint under the 2004 Act
On 28 December 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint, under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”) which entered into force on 17 September 2004.
On 9 February 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. The court held that the 2004 Act had taken full legal effect on the date of its entry into force. The court acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings as a whole. However, it found that during the relevant part of the proceedings there had been no inactivity or undue delay on the part of the authorities. It accordingly held that there had been no breach of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time in the period after 17 September 2004.
3.  Second set of proceedings against the applicant
On 31 May 2000 the applicant was indicted on charges of handling stolen cars.
On 29 December 2000 the Kartuzy District Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. He appealed.
On 16 May 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Kartuzy District Court.
On 20 March 2002 the Kartuzy District Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
On 30 April 2002 the applicant appealed. The appeal was rejected by the Kartuzy District Court, since it had been filed outside the statutory time‑limit.
On 16 June 2002 the applicant lodged an application with the Kartuzy District Court for the time-limit to lodge an appeal to be restored. On 18 July 2002 the Kartuzy District Court dismissed that application. The applicant appealed. On 30 September 2002 the Gdańsk Regional Court quashed the District Court decision and restored the time-limit for lodging an appeal.
On 7 May 2003 the Gdańsk Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Kartuzy District Court.
During the proceedings before the Kartuzy District Court hearings were scheduled approximately once every two months. Some of the hearings were adjourned.
On 31 October 2006 the Kartuzy District Court sentenced the applicant to two years' imprisonment. The applicant appealed.
On 5 September 2007 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance court judgment.
It appears that the applicant failed to lodge a cassation appeal against the Gdańsk Regional Court judgment.
4.  The applicant's complaint under the 2004 Act
On 5 November 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint under the 2004 Act about a breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time.
On 26 February 2007 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. The court held that the complaint under the 2004 Act could not be lodged after a first-instance judgment had been given, even though the applicant had appealed and the case was pending between two instances.
B.  Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are stated in the Court's decisions in the cases of Charzyński v. Poland no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V, and Ratajczyk v. Poland, no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of both sets of criminal proceedings against him had been excessive.
2. Without invoking any Article of the Convention, he also complained in general terms that the criminal proceedings on the charge of handling stolen vehicles had been unfair.
THE LAW
On 3 July 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 10,000 (ten thousand Polish zlotys) to Mr Dariusz Lis 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 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 27 August 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN 10,000 (ten thousand 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.”
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 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.
	Lawrence Early	Nicolas Bratza
	Registrar	President