FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 49180/99 by Janusz KĘPKA against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 May 2004 as a Chamber composed of

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M. Pellonpää , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr R. Maruste , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki , Mr J. Borrego Borrego, judges , and Mr M. O'Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 January 1999,

Having regard to the decision to apply the procedure under Article 29 § 3 of the Convention,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Janusz Kępka, is a Polish national who was born in 1935 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.

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

A. First set of proceedings

The applicant worked as a senior academic teacher at the National Fire Academy ( Szkoła Główna Służby Pożarniczej ). In 1995 he asked the Superintendent of the National Fire Academy to publish a number of his scientific dissertations. The Superintendent refused.

On 12 September 1995 the applicant lodged a claim against the Superintendent with the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ), seeking protection of his personal rights.

The court held five hearings: on 16 December 1996, 7 November 1997, 16 January 1998, 24 April 1998 and 5 June 1998.

Since June 1998, the applicant has on several occasions unsuccessfully asked the court to fix a date for a further hearing.

On 15 October 2001 the trial court held a hearing. On 29 October 2001 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment. The judgment is final.

B. Second set of proceedings

In 1995 the applicant was discharged from the National Fire Service ( Państwowa Straż Pożarna ). On 24 November 1995 the applicant sued the Superintendent of the National Fire Academy before the Warsaw Regional Court seeking protection of personal rights.

On 11 April 1997 the Regional Court refused to deal with the merits of the claim because it concerned disciplinary proceedings, i.e. discharge from the fire service. The applicant appealed against that decision. On 6 October 1998 the Warsaw Court of Appeal ( SÄ…d Apelacyjny ) quashed the first-instance decision. Subsequently, the Regional Court proceeded with the case.

Between 13 March 2000 and 23 July 2001 the court held four hearings.

On 6 August 2001 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant appealed. On 19 December 2002 the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment.

The proceedings are pending before the Warsaw Regional Court.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of both sets of proceedings.

2. He also alleges a breach of Article 6 in that he did not have a “fair trial” because the courts made serious errors of fact and law.

THE LAW

On 4 February 2004 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 20,000 covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

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 settlement of the case.

This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and I have reached.”

On 26 February 2004 the Court received the following declaration from the Polish Government:

“I declare that, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case, the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 20,000 to Mr Janusz Kępka. This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the decision by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties and considers that the matter has been resolved (Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued. Accordingly, the application to the case of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued and the case struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention;

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

Michael O'Boyle Nicolas Bratza Registrar President