FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 36992/06 by Grzegorz TRZCIA Ł KOWSKI against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 22 May 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki , Ms L. Mijović , Mr J. Šikuta , Mrs P. Hirvelä , judges , and Mr T . L. Early , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 December 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 Grzegorz Trzcia ł kowski , is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Warszawa. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Jakub Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs .

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

On 7 January 2000 the applicant was arrested and placed in police custody.

On 9 January 2000 the Wołomin District Court ordered that the applicant be detained on suspicion of having committed fraud as a result of which third parties had disposed of their property, valued at 362,840 zlotys (PLN), to their detriment.

At a hearing on 28 June 2002 the Wołomin District Court remitted the case to the Wołomin District Prosecutor so that shortcomings in the investigation could be corrected. It also decided that the judicial proceedings should be conducted anew as the applicant had so requested and the interval between the hearings had been more than 35 days.

On 30 January 2004 the Wołomin District Court sentenced the applicant to six years ’ imprisonment and ordered that payments be made to the victims on account of the damage incurred. On 30 March 2004 the applicant appealed.

On 29 September 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court.

On 3 January 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint under the 2004 Act with the Warsaw Regional Court .

On 13 April 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed his complaint. In its reasoned grounds it stated that hearings had been held at brief intervals. It also stated that the length of the proceedings could have been attributable to the conduct of the applicant, who had made use of his procedural right and requested that the judicial proceedings be conducted anew.

On 22 December 2005 the Wołomin District Court gave a decision that the applicant ’ s case could be joined to that of other defendants in the same proceedings.

On 29 March 2006 the Wołomin District Court decided to conduct anew the judicial proceedings to which the present case had been joined.

On 26 June 2006 the proceedings were adjourned since a judge was on leave.

On 27 July 2006 proceedings were adjourned again.

On 17 October 2006 the proceedings were adjourned due to the absence of one of the accused.

The proceedings are pending before the Wołomin District Court.

COMPLAINT S

1. The applicant complain ed under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of criminal proceedings.

2. He also complain ed under Article 5 § 3 about the length of his pre-trial detention.

3. Further he complain ed under Article 5 § 5 that he had not ha d an enforceable right to compensation.

4. Finally, he complain ed invoking Article 6 § 1, 2 and 3 d) about errors of the courts in their assessment of evidence.

THE LAW

On 30 November 2006 the Court decided to communicate the application to the Government.

On 19 April 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“I, Jakub Woł ą siewicz , Agent o f the Government , declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay 10 , 000 PLN to Mr Grzegorz Trzciałkowski 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 April 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“I, Grzegorz Trzciałkowski , note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of 10 , 000 PLN with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights 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 Euro pean Convention on Human Rights . From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall b 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 (Article 37 § 1 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court). 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