FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 20004/03 by Adam WASILEWSKI against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 March 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, judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 June 2003,

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 Adam Wasilews ki, is a Polish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Brwinow. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Wasilewski, who is his legal representative as the applicant is partially incapacitated . The Polish Government (“the Government”) were r epresented by their Agent, Mr J. Woł ą siewicz 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 . C riminal proceedings

On 15 April 1998 the applicant was arrested and charged with attempted extortion of money using threats.

The bill of indictment against the applicant was lodged with the Pruszków District Court on 21 December 1998. The trial was to commence on 26 January 1999.

On 15 April 1999 the court decided that the applicant should be examined by a team of three psychiatrists in order to establish his mental condition tempore criminis. Th eir report was submitted on 20 October 1999 . At the next hearing held on 3 December 1999 the court decided to conduct the trial ab initio , the composition of the court having changed . The court also ordered, upon the applicant ’ s request, a new medical opinion on whether his mental condition prevent ed him from participating in the proceedings. This opinion was submitted to the court on 17 April 2000 . Apparently, no further hearings were held in 2000. On 6 December 2000 the court decided that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the applicant ’ s case.

The n ext hearings were held on 22 June , 4 September, 1 October and 14 November 2001. On 4 September 200 1 the Pruszków District Court refused to send the case back to the prosecuting authorities f or the investigation to be completed. The applicant appealed. On 11 December 2001 the Warsaw Regional Court quashed the decision of 4 September 2001 and ordered that the request to send the case back to the prosecuting authorities for further investigation be re-examined. On 14 December 2001 the Pruszków District Court again rejected this request.

By a judgment of 28 June 2002 the Pruszków District Court found the applicant guilty of an attempt to extort money using threats in collusion with other persons whose identity had not been established. The court sentenced the appli cant to two years ’ imprisonment and stayed the execution of the sentence. The applicant appealed. On 3 November 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and ordered that the case be re-considered.

On 28 July 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed as unfounded the applicant ’ s complaint under the 2004 Act about the breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time. The court stated that although the proceedings had lasted since 1998 and had not yet been completed, the applicant himself was responsible for their protracted length in view of his many motions and appeals. The applicant was served with the decision on 2 October 2006.

The proceedings are pending .

2 . C ivil proceedings

In 1998 the applicant filed a claim with the Warsaw Regional Court against the State Treasury for a pension and compensation for unlawful arrest.

On 10 June 2003 the President of the Warsaw Court of Appeal admitted in his letter to the applicant that the proceedings had been lengthy. However, the court could not be held responsible for the delays.

On 3 October 2006 the applicant informed the Court that he did not intend to lodge a complaint about the breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time under the 2004 Act.

The proceedings are pending.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the C onvention about the length of two sets of proceedings (criminal and civil).

THE LAW

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

On 6 February 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 8 ,000 PLN to Mr Adam 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 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 7 February 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“I, Adam Wasilewski, the applicant, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of 8 ,000 PLN 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. 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 of 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 39 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 Cour t unanimously

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

T. L . Early Nicolas Bratza Registrar President