FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 14847/05 by Adam NOWICKI 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 S. Pavlovschi ,

Mr L. Garlicki ,

Ms L. Mijović

and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 March 2005,

H aving 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 frien dly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Adam Nowicki, is a Polish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Bydgoszcz . 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.

On 30 September 1997 a bill of indictment against the applicant and three other co-defendants was lodged with the Bydgoszcz District Court (S Ä… d Rejonowy) . The applicant was charged with armed robbery.

Between 30 September 1997 and 4 August 2004 the Bydgoszcz District Court scheduled 39 hearings but all of them were adjourned. The trial eventually opened on 4 August 2004. On the same date the Bydgoszcz District Court decided that the applicant ’ s case s hould be examined separately.

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Bydgoszcz 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”). He sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Bydgoszcz District Court had been excessive and that he should be awarded just satisfaction.

On 10 January 2005 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court gave a decision in which it acknowledged the “grossly” excessive length of the proceedings (7 years and 39 scheduled hearings none of which led to the opening of the trial). Furthermore, it found that the applicant had not significantly contributed to the length of the proceedings but refused nevertheless to grant him any just satisfaction, holding that he had failed to reason his request for just satisfaction.

On 2 March 2006 the Bydgoszcz District Court convicted the applicant. It is unclear whether the applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment.

On an unspecified date, most probably before the delivery of the first-instance judgment the applicant lodged another length of proceedings complaint.

On 6 March 2006 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court dismissed his complaint.

B. Relevant domestic law

The legal provisions that apply in the case and the relevant practice are set out in paragraphs 12-17 of the decision in the case of Charzyński v. Poland , no. 15212/03 and in paragraphs 12-17 of the decision in the case of Michalak v. Poland , no. 24549/03, both decisions delivered by the Court on 1 March 2005.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of criminal proceedings against him. He also complained about the domestic court ’ s refusal to grant him just satisfaction for the acknowledged excessive length of the proceedings. In this respect he did not rely on any specific provision of the Convention.

THE LAW

On 13 August 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“I note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN 10,000 (ten thousand 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 an unspecified date the Court received the following declaration dated 24 July 2007 and signed by the Agent of the Government:

“I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 10,000 (ten thousand Polish zlotys) to Mr Adam Nowicki 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 Bratza Registrar President