FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 1328/07 by Marzena WASILEWSKA against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza , President, Lech Garlicki , Giovanni Bonello , Ljiljana Mijović , Ján Šikuta , Päivi Hirvelä , Ledi Bianku , judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 January 2007,

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 f riendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Marzena Wasilewska, is a Polish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Suwał ki. She was represented before the Court by Mr A. Bodnar, a lawyer practising in Warszawa. 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. The criminal proceedings

On 29 March 2000 a bill of indictment against the applicant and two co ‑ accused was lodged with the Jaworzno District Court. The applicant was charged with fraud.

On 8 May 2000 a decision on the transfer of the case to the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court was taken as most of the witnesses lived in the vicinity of the latter court. The case was transferred between different courts on several occasions.

On 19 September 2000 the case was transferred to the Prosecution Office in order to remedy the deficiencies in the investigation.

On 8 May 2001 the case was transferred to the Jaworzno District Court.

On 19 September 2001 the Katowice Regional Court refused the Jaworzno District Court ’ s request to transfer the case to another court. In its decision the Regional Court underlined that the case had been repeatedly transferred between different courts for over a year.

On 26 February 2002 the proceedings were stayed as one of the accused was seriously ill. On 24 January 2003 the proceedings were resumed.

On 13 October 2005 the Jaworzno District Court acquitted the applicant.

On 21 November 2005 the Suwa Å‚ki District Prosecutor lodged an appeal .

On 3 October 2006 the judgment together with its written grounds was served on the applicant. She did not appeal.

The proceedings are p ending before the second-instance court.

2. Proceedings under the 2004 Act

The applicant lodged two complaints under the Law of 17 June 200 4 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (“the 2004 Act”). Both her complaints were dismissed (by the decisions of the Katowice Regional Court of 15 June 2005 and 9 August 2006).

In the reasoned grounds for the decision of 15 June 2005 the Katowice Regional Court found that several accused had been involved in the proceedings, the charges concerned several offences and numerous witnesses had been examined. The court admitted that the transfer of the case between different courts had taken up a considerable amount of time. However, it found that the reasonable time requirement had not been exceeded. It further observed that the courts had taken necessary disciplinary measures to avoid delays, and some of the delays (including the staying of the proceedings on two occasions) had been caused by the accused ’ s illnesses.

In its decision of 9 August 2006 the Katowice Regional Court confirmed that the proceedings had been lengthy, but found that there had been no unreasonable delays on the part of the authorities. It justified the lapse of time between the delivery of the judgment and the service of its written reasons on the applicant by the need to translate the reasons into Arabic, the language of one of the accused.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings.

THE LAW

On 29 January 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“ I, Jakub Wołąsiewicz , Agent of the Government , declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay 12,500 Polish zlotys to Ms Marzena Wasilewsk a 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. 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 21 January 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“ I, Marzena Wasilewska , note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of 12,500 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 view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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