FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 10101/04 by Jan SNARSKI against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Giovanni Bonello , President, Lech Garlicki , Ljiljana Mijović , David Thór Björgvinsson , Ján Šikuta , Ledi Bianku , Mihai Poalelungi , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 January 2004,

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 Jan Snarski , is a Polish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Narew . He was represented before the Court by Ms Z. Daniszewska-Dek , a lawyer practising in Białystok . The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Jakub 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. Proceedings on the merits

On 26 October 1998 the applicant logged a claim with the Białystok Regional Court , Criminal Department, for compensation for unjustified arrest in a case in which he had been acquitted of the charges by a judgment of 19 February 1998. The charges had concerned alleged fraudulent take over of a company ’ s assets while the applicant had performed the functions of the company ’ s president.

On 28 October 1998 the Regional Court informed the applicant that the case file of the criminal proceedings were at the disposal of the Labour and Social Insurance Department of the court and the proceedings could not be commenced before the file was returned.

On 4 April 1999, following the applicant ’ s repeated requests for accelerating the proceedings, the criminal court requested the labour court to return the case file. In reply the criminal court was informed that the case file had been attached to another case being examined by the Court of Appeal. The court refrained from further actions to recuperate the case file.

On 10 December 1999 the Court of Appeal returned the relevant case file. On 13 December 1999 the Regional Court decided to purse the applicant ’ s claim and register it under a case number.

A hearing was held on 15 February 2000.

On 18 February 2000 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s claim. He appealed.

On 27 April 2000 the Court of Appeal remitted the case for re-examination.

On 23 January 2001 the applicant was informed by the Regional Court that he case file concerning his arrest had been destroyed and recycled since three years had elapsed since the final ruling in the case.

On 1 June 2001 the applicant requested that all judges of the Białystok Regional Court and Court of Appeal be excluded from examining the case.

The first hearing after the remittal was scheduled on 4 June 2001. The applicant ’ s request was read out and the hearing was closed.

On 9 October 2001 the Regional Court transferred the case file to the Court of Appeal in order to consider the applicant ’ s request.

On 19 October 2001 the Court of Appeal excluded three judges and dismissed the remainder of the request.

On 10 December 2001 a hearing was held.

The hearings scheduled for 11 February 2002 and 27 May 2002 were adjourned because the witnesses had not received the summons.

On 14 June 2002 the Regional Court awarded the applicant PLN 3,000 as just satisfaction and dismissed the remainder of his claim. The applicant appealed.

On 18 December 2002 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment insofar as it dismissed the applicant ’ s claim and remitt ed the case in this part for re ‑ examination.

The Regional Court held six hearings.

On 1 December 2003 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s claim. The applicant appealed.

On 9 March 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case.

The Regional Court held one hearing.

On 17 June 2004 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s claim.

On 5 October 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case.

On 17 June 2005 the Regional Court awarded the applicant additional just satisfaction amounting to PLN 7,000 and PLN 6,540 of compensation for damages. The applicant appealed.

On 8 December 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment.

The applicant lodged a cassation appeal.

On 16 November 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, without justification, as manifestly ill-founded.

2. Proceedings under the 2004 Act

On 6 October 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Court under section 18 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”).

On 7 December 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. It took into consideration only two periods of examination of the case by the Court of Appeal , which lasted approximately 3 months each (that is between lodging the appeal and the delivery of the judgment). Consequently, the court considered the applicant ’ s complaint ill-founded. The Supreme Court found itself not competent to deal with the complaint insofar as it concerned the proceedings before the Regional Court , and referred the case to the Court of Appeal in this part.

On 9 February 2005 the Court of Appeal acknowledged that the impugned proceedings had been excessively lengthy.

Although the Court of Appeal observed that the cases had been several times remitted, which contributed significantly to the overall length of proceedings, the court nevertheless examined each period of examination of the case by the Regional Court separately.

The court emphasised the flagrant lack of efficiency in the collection of evidence as well as “unjustified periods of inactivity” on the part of the Regional Court in respect of first three periods. The court also admitted that the applicant did not contribute to the length of the proceedings. Insofar as the period after the remittal on 19 March 2004 was concerned, the Court of Appeal did not find it lengthy.

Consequently, the court considered that an award of PLN 4 ,000 would be adequate (that is PLN 2 , 000 in respect of the first period, PLN 1 , 000 in respect of the second and third period , and none in respect of the fourth period ).

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

A detailed presentation of 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 stated in the Court ’ s decisions in cases of CharzyÅ„ski v. Poland no. 15212/03 ( dec .), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V and Ratajczyk v. Poland no. 11215/02 ( dec .), ECHR 2005 ‑ VIII and the judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland , no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V.

COMPLAINT S

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings in his case.

The applicant further complains under Article 6 and 13 of Convention that the 2004 Act is not an effective remedy in respect of his complaint

THE LAW

On 27 May 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“ I, Jakub Wo łąsiewicz , Agent of the G overnm e nt, declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay 12.000 PLN to Mr Jan Snarski 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 a ny 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 19 May 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“ I, Jan Snarski , the applicant , note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of 12.000 PLN 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 Prot ocols 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 strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Fatoş Aracı Giovanni Bonello Deputy Registrar President