FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 3187/07 by Janusz WASILEWSKI against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 26 February 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza , President, Lech Garlicki , Giovanni Bonello , Stanislav Pavlovschi , Ljiljana Mijović , David Thór Björgvinsson , 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 friendly settlement of the case.

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Janusz Wasilewski, is a Polish national who was born in 1949 and lives in Suwałki . He 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

1. The criminal proceedings

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 23 December 1999 the applicant was arrested and detained in police custody.

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

On 8 May 2000 a decision was taken to transfer the case to the Tomaszow Mazowiecki District 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 26 February 2002 the proceedings were stayed because the applicant was seriously ill. The proceedings were resumed on 24 January 2003.

On 13 October 2005 the Jaworzno District Court sentenced the applicant to two years ’ imprisonment and conditionally stayed the execution of the sentence for a period of three years.

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.

On 16 October 2006 the applicant lodged an 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 ( Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) (“the 2004 Act”). On both occasions his complaints were dismissed (the decisions of the Katowice Regional Court of 15 June 2005 and 9 August 2006).

In 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 much 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 them (including the staying of the proceedings on two occasions) had been caused by the accused ’ s illnesses.

In the 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. It justified the lapse of time between the delivery of the judgment and serving its written reasons on the applicant by the need to translate the reasons into Arabic, a language of one of the accused.

COMPLAINT

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

THE LAW

On 24 April 2007 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 Mr Janusz Wasilewski 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, Janusz Wasilewski , 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