FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 54290/08
by Dariusz KUJAWKA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
and 
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 October 2008,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 14 January 2010 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:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Dariusz Kujawka, is a Polish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Szamotuły. 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.  Criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 20 June 2002 the applicant was charged with twenty-one counts of fraud.
On 28 February 2003 he was indicted before the Wągrowiec District Court. The bill of indictment comprised charges of fraud against the applicant and other suspects.
The first hearing scheduled for 7 July 2003 was adjourned, as five of the accused, including the applicant, failed to appear before the trial court (the post did not return the applicant’s acknowledgement of receipt prior to the hearing; it remains unclear whether the summons reached the applicant in time).
Hearings scheduled for 3 October and 1 December 2003 were adjourned as some of the accused did not appear before the court.
A hearing was held on 30 January 2004. The court severed charges against the applicant and three other accused persons.
A hearing scheduled for 19 March 2004 was adjourned.
A hearing scheduled for 27 May 2004 was cancelled due to the judge rapporteur’s family problems.
A subsequent hearing scheduled for 18 August 2004 was likewise adjourned, as the applicant and another accused, a certain K.K., failed to appear before the court (the post did not return the applicant’s acknowledgement of receipt prior to the hearing; it remains unclear whether the summons reached the applicant in time).
On 8 October 2004 the trial court adjourned the hearing due to K.K.’s absence. The court was in the meantime informed that K.K. was detained in the Gębarzew prison.
The applicant failed to appear at a hearing of 1 December 2004. He informed the court that he was ill.
On 26 January 2005 the trial was opened. On the same day the court gave judgment in the case of K.K., who voluntarily decided to accept the penalty.
The next hearings were held on 1 April, 18 May, 6 July, 19 August, 17 October and 2 December 2005.
A hearing scheduled for 18 January 2006 was cancelled due to the judge’s illness.
The next hearings were held on 13 February and 15 March 2006. The applicant was absent at the latter hearing. He claimed that he had been summoned to a hearing before the Poznań District Court.
Subsequently, hearings were held on 15 March, 21 April and 24 May 2006. The applicant did not appear at the hearing of 21 April.
A hearing scheduled for 21 June 2006 was adjourned, as the applicant had informed the court that he had been summoned to a hearing before the Kluczbork District Court. The court later noted that the explanation was untrue and ordered that the applicant be escorted to the court.
The next hearing was held on 19 July 2006.
On 26 July 2006 the Wągrowiec District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to two years and ten months’ imprisonment.
On 9 October 2006 the applicant appealed.
An appellate hearing scheduled for 26 January 2007 was adjourned, as the court needed to obtain information concerning the applicant’s criminal record.
The next hearings scheduled for 25 May and 10 August 2007 were also adjourned, as the applicant had been transported to a different remand centre and could not be escorted to the trial court.
On 19 October 2007 the Poznań Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s judgment.
On 31 December 2007 the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against a decision on costs.
On 15 February 2008 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a cassation appeal.
On 26 June 2008 the Supreme Court quashed the two above-mentioned judgments on the grounds that the composition of the first-instance court had been unlawful and remitted the case.
The case file was transmitted to the first-instance court on 10 July 2008.
The re-trial before the Wągrowiec District Court commenced on 22 August 2008.
The next hearings were held on 6 and 28 October 2008.
The trial court scheduled subsequent hearings for 3 and 15 December 2008.
On 14 July 2009 the Wągrowiec District Court gave judgment. The applicant’s appeal filed against it currently awaits examination by the appellate court.
2.  Proceedings under the 2004 Act
On 2 September 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint about a breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time in respect of the criminal proceedings against him and asked for just satisfaction. He relied on 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.
The applicant sought a ruling that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN). He also requested the court to accelerate the proceedings.
On 23 November 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Poznań Court of Appeal about the undue length of the examination of his complaint under the 2004 Act lodged with the Poznań Regional Court.
The Poznań Court of Appeal decided, on 16 December 2008, to leave the applicant’s complaint without examination. It held that it was not possible under Polish law to complain about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time in respect of proceedings under the 2004 Act.
On 19 December 2008 the Poznań Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint of 2 September 2008. The court held that in the light of the circumstances of the case, the proceedings were being conducted with due diligence and within a reasonable time. It noted that hearings were being held regularly and that specific measures had been employed by the District Court to discipline the witnesses and the accused. It also stressed that the applicant had intentionally misled the trial court on 21 June 2006.
B.  Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are presented in the Court’s decisions in the cases of Charzyński v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005‑V and Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005-VIII, and its judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
By letter dated 14 January 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government hereby wish to express – by way of unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicant was involved.
In these circumstances, and having regard to the particular facts of the case, the Government declare that they offer to pay to the applicant the amount of PLN 5,000 (five thousand Polish zlotys), which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case law in similar cases. The sum referred to above, 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 rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default periods plus three percentage points.
The Government would respectfully suggest that the above declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
...”
 In a letter of 7 February 2010 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was acceptable and agreed to the Court’s striking the case out of its list of cases.
The Court notes that the parties can be considered to have reached a friendly settlement. 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