FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 18034/05 by Wies Å‚ aw LISIECKI against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 6 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

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

Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 April 2005,

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

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Wies Å‚ aw Lisiecki , is a Polish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Lipki Wielkie .

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.

It appears that on 17 April 2000 the applicant had an accident at work.

1. Proceedings for compensation

On 29 April 2003 the applicant lodged with the Gorzów Wielkopolski District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) a claim for compensation for loss of earnings during the period he had been unable to work. On 15 September 2003 the District Court gave judgment. According to the applicant, on the same day he lodged a notice of appeal. In this connection he supplied a copy of that notice with a stamp that reads: “District Labour and Social Security Court , received on 15.09.2003”. It appears that the applicant did not receive a statement of reasons for the judgment and, therefore, he could not appeal since su ch a statement was a condition sine qua non for lodging an appeal.

It appears from the documents provided by the applicant that he lodged several complaints with the President of the Gorzów Wielkopolski Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) requesting a speed y examination of his case pending before the District Court. On 19 May 2005 the President of the Regional Court informed the applicant that the 15 September 2003 judgment was final and that the Regional Court has no competence to order the Gorzów Wielkopolski District Court to prepare a statement of reasons for the judgment.

2. P roceedings for sickness benefits

On 25 March 2003 the applicant lodged with the Gorzów Wielkopolski District Court a claim for sickness benefits related to his accident at work. On 15 September 2003 the court discontinued the proceedings. On 7 October 2003 the applicant appealed against the decision to discontinue the proceedings and asked for legal assistance. The court did not examine the applicant ’ s appeal n or his application for legal aid. Moreover, on 15 September 2003, the date on which the decision became final, the records of the case were sent to the court ’ s archives.

After the Gorzów Wielkopolski Regional Court had examined the applicant ’ s complaint under the 2004 Act (see below) the case was remitted to the District Court. On an unknown date the court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of related proceeding. It appears that the case is still pending before the District Court.

3. The applicant ’ s complaints under the 2004 Act

On 11 December 2003 the applicant lodged with the Gorzów Wielkopolski Regional Court , through the District Court, two complaints about the excessive length of proceedings in the compensation and sickness benefits cases. He relied on the provisions of the 17 June 2004 Act on complaints about a breach of the right to a fair 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 complaint lodged by the applicant was transmitted to the Regional Court on 21 March 2005. On 20 April 2005 the Gorzów Wielkopolski Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint. The court held that the 2004 Act was applicable only to pending proceedings, whereas the proceedings had ended on 15 September 2003 and the applicant had not lodged a notice of appeal and had not appealed.

In the complaint concerning the proceedings for sickness benefits , the applicant sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the District Court has been excessive.

The complaint lodged by the applicant was transmitted to the Regional Court on 21 March 2005. On 20 April 2005 the court acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings. It referred to the fact that as the applicant had lodged an appeal and therefore the proceedings were still in progress. It awarded the applicant PLN 500 (approx. 120 euros (EUR)) in just satisfaction. Furthermore, it ordered the Gorzów Wielkopolski District Court to examine the applicant ’ s appeal and his application for legal assistance.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial and enforcement proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are set out 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), and in its the judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland , (no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V).

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about a breach of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time in that:

- the proceedings for compensation were unduly prolonged on account of the District Court ’ s failure to draw up a statement of reasons for its judgment;

- the proceedings for sickness benefits were excessively lengthy, in particular as regards the examination of his appeal against the decision of 15 September 2003 .

2. He also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that his complaint lodged under the 2004 Act was not an effective remedy in respect of the alleged violation of the reasonable time requirement.

THE LAW

On 14 February 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Agent of the Government:

“ I , Jakub WoÅ‚Ä…siewicz , Agent of the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 8,000 to Mr WiesÅ‚aw Lisiecki 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 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 18 February 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“ I, WiesÅ‚aw Lisiecki , note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of 8,000 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 and 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 agreement reached between the parties and considers that the matter has been resolved (Article 37 § 1 (b) 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 examination of the application to be continued. Accordingly, the application to the case of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued and the case struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Fato ş Aracı Nicolas Bratza Deputy Registrar President