FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 42549/06 by Karol GLIŃSKI against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 November 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr G. Bonello , Mr K. Traja , Mr L. Garlicki , Ms L. Mijović , Mr J. Šikuta, judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 October 2006,

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, Mr Karol Gliński , is a Polish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Inowrocł aw. 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. Main proceedings

On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant.

On 30 March 2001 a bill of indictment against the applicant was lodged with the Toru Å„ District Court (S Ä… d Rejonowy) . He was charged with two counts of burglary.

Between 30 March 2001 and 16 June 2004 the District Court listed 14 hearings. At least 6 of them were adjourned because the police had failed to bring the applicant from the detention centre for financial and organisational reasons (z braku si ł i ś rodków).

After 16 June 2004 the District Court held 7 hearings at regular intervals (about 1 month each).

On 26 January 2005 the Toruń District Court gave judgment and found the applicant guilty of one count of burglary and acquitted him of the second count.

The prosecutor and the applicant ’ s lawyer lodged their appeals against the first-instance judgment.

On 22 July 2005 the Toruń Regional Court (Są d Okr ę gowy) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.

2. Proceedings under the 2004 Act

On 20 June 2006 the applicant l odged a complaint with the Toruń Regional Court under section 5 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 post ę powaniu s ą dowym bez nieuzasadnionej zw ł oki) (“the 2004 Act”). H e sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Toruń District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction.

On 28 July 2006 the Toruń Regional Court gave a decision in which it acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings before the Toruń District Court, finding that there had been three periods of unjustified inactivity lasting 4 months and 21 days, 5 months and 19 days and 5 months and 16 days, shortly after the bill of indictment had been lodged with the trial court. The court also found that after these periods the proceedings had been conducted diligently and without undue delays and that adjournments of hearings had been justified on procedural grounds. It awarded the applicant 1,500 Polish Zlotys (PLN) (approx. EUR 382) in just satisfaction. Referring to the amount of just satisfaction, the court held that “the amount awarded is justified by the said periods of inactivity on the part of the District Court and by the fact that the procee dings had already lasted over 5 years”.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are stated 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.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of criminal proceedings against him. The applicant further complained that the court dealing with his length complaint should have found more periods of unjustified inactivity on the part of the District Court, particularly on account of the fact that the police had failed to bring him from the detention centre.

THE LAW

On 19 June 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“I, Karol Gliński, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN 7,500 (seven t housand five hundred 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.”

On 4 September 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 7,500 (seven thousand five hundred Polish zlotys) to Mr Karol Gliński 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.”

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). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously .

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

T.L. Early Nicolas B ratza Registrar President