FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 20278/02 by Danuta PAPIERNIAK against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7 October 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza , President, Lech Garlicki , Giovanni Bonello , Ljiljana Mijović , David Thór Björgvinsson , Ledi Bianku , Mihai Poalelungi , judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 November 2000 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mrs Danuta Papierniak, was a Polish national who was born in 1936 and live d in D ą browa G ó rnicza. On 6 August 2004 the applicant died. On 13 May 2005 the applicant ' s husband, Mr Zdzisław Papierniak, informed the Registry that he wished to continue the application lodged by his late wife. The Polish Government (“ the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by th e parties, may be summarised as f ollows:

The applicant owned a house in Dąbrowa Górnicza. Apparently, there was a carpenter ' s and a paint shop close to her house, which emitted gas substances and odours allegedly harmful to people living in the neighbourhood.

On an unspecified date in 1990 the owner of the carpenter ' s shop requested a building permit to extend his premises.

On 5 February 1990 the Architec t of Dąbrowa Górnicza granted a building permit.

Following numerous complaints from th e applicant and her husband, on 14 December 1995, the Governor of Katowice (Wojewoda Katowicki) instituted administrative proceedings to de clare the decision given by the Architect of Dąbrowa Górnicza on 5 February 1990 null and void.

On 16 February 1996 the Governor of Katowice refused to declare the decision null and void.

On 12 March 1996 the applicant appealed.

On 14 November 1996 the Chief Inspector of Construction Supervision (Główny Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego) also refused to declare the decision null and void.

The applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny SÄ…d Administracyjny).

On 9 March 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Chief Inspector of Construction Supervision ' s decision.

On 19 August 1998 the Chief Inspector of Construction Supervision, having re-examined the matter, quashed the Governor of K atowice ' s decision of 16 February 1996 a nd declared the decision of the Architect of Dąbrowa Górnicza null and void.

On an unspecified date the owner of the carpenter ' s shop lodged an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court .

On 1 June 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal.

On 23 October 2000, at the request of the owner of the carpenter ' s shop, the Mayor of Dąbrowa Górnicza (Prezydent Miasta Dąbrowa Górnicza) gave a decision on the type and amount of harmful substances that were allowed to be emitted into the air (ustalił rodzaj i ilość substancji zanieczyszczających do wprowadzania do powietrza) .

On 7 August 2001 the applicant appealed.

On 28 September 2001 the Katowice Self-Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze) gave a decision and discontinued the appellate proceedings, holding that the applicant could not be regarded as a party having a “legal interest” in the proceedings.

On an unspecified date the applicant appealed a gainst that decision to the Supreme Administrative Court .

On 20 May 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision.

On 14 June 2002 the Mayor of Dąbrowa Górnicza gave a decision authorising the applicant ' s neighbour to use the carpenter ' s shop (pozwolenie na uż ytkowanie) .

On 2 July 2002 the applicant appealed against that decision.

On 22 August 2002 the ÅšlÄ…ski Governo r (Wojewoda ÅšlÄ…ski) quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.

On 15 December 2003 the Mayor of Dąbrowa Górnicza gave a decision on the type and amount of harmful sub stances that were allowed to be emitted into the air.

On an unspecified date the applicant appealed.

On 9 March 2004 the Katowice Self-Government Board of Appeal upheld the decision.

On 13 April 2004 the applicant appealed to the Gliwice Regional Administrative Court (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny).

On 28 November 2005 the Gliwice Regional Administrative Court gave judgment and quashed both previous decisions.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained, without relying on any provision of the Convention, that the administrative proceedings relating to the issue of a building permit to his neighbour had lasted an excessively long time.

She also complained, relying on Articles 1, 5 and 17 of the Convention, that pollution from the carpenter ' s shop situated near her house had affected her right to respect for her family life and her home.

THE LAW

Following notification of the death of the applicant on 6 August 2004, the Registry, b y a letter dated 28 April 2008, sent the Government ' s observations to the applicant ' s husband , who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 9 June 2008.

On 28 May 2008 the applicant ' s husband informed the Court that he w ished to withdraw the application.

On 5 June 2008 the Registry, by a letter sent by registered post, requested the applicant ' s husband to confirm his positi on as regards the withdrawal of the application, by 30 June 2008.

On 18 June 2008 the Court received an acknowledgement of receipt signed by the daughter of the applicant and her husband on 10 June 2008.

Since then the applicant ' s husband has failed to take any action.

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant ' s husband may be regarded as no longer wishing t o pursue the application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) 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 continued examination of the case. 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.

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza Registrar President