FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 52586/99 by Małgorzata STRZAŁKOWSKA against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) , sitting on 21 January 2003 as a Chamber composed of

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mrs E. Palm , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr M. Fischbach , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr R. Maruste , Mr L. Garlicki , judges , and Mrs F. Elens-Passos , Deputy Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 May 1999,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Małgorzata Strzałkowska, is a Polish national, who was born in 1969 and lives in Lidzbark, Poland . She was not legally represented before the Court. The respondent Government were represented by Mr K. Drzewicki, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

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

On 27 May 1994 the applicant filed with the Warsaw Regional Court ( sąd wojewódzki ) a divorce action.

On 21 July 1994 the court held an information meeting aimed at a reconciliation between the spouses, but to no avail.

On 25 November 1994 it ordered an expert opinion concerning contacts of the applicant’s husband (hereinafter: T) with their son. He refused to undergo an examination by psychologists.

On 12 May 1995 the court dismissed T’s challenge to the participation in the proceedings of one of the judges. On 29 December 1995 the Warsaw Court of Appeal ( sąd apelacyjny ) dismissed his appeal against that decision.

At the hearing held on 30 May 1995 the Regional Court indicated the place of residence of the applicant’s son and his contacts with T pending the divorce proceedings. During the hearing security guards were called to the courtroom, because of T’s behaviour.

On 21 June 1995 the court refused T’s request to correct the minutes of a hearing.

On 10 August 1995 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed both parties’ appeals against the Regional Court’s decision of 30 May 1995.

On 2 December 1995 T challenged another judge participating in the proceedings. On 23 February 1996 the Regional court dismissed his petition. On 21 June 1996 the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed that decision, relying on the unlawful composition of the Regional Court.

On 3 September 1996 the Regional Court again dismissed T’s challenge. His appeal against that decision was on 27 November 1996 dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

On 21 February 1997 the Regional Court ordered an expert opinion concerning the custody over the applicant’s son and his contacts with the parents. T failed to appear before the family centre where the examination was carried out.

On 24 March 1997 the Regional Court dismissed another challenge from T to the same judge and imposed a 500 zlotys ’ (PLN) fine on him for challenging a judge in bad faith. On 12 September 1997 the Court of Appeal dismissed T’s appeal against that decision.

At the hearing held on 12 May 1998 the Regional Court refused both parties’ requests concerning the contacts with the son and granted him child support maintenance to be paid by T.

On 18 May 1998 it dismissed T’s request to impose a fine on a witness.

On 16 November 1998 the Regional Court dismissed T’s challenge to the participation in the proceedings of another judge and imposed a PLN 500 fine for lodging manifestly ill-founded petitions in this respect. On 3 February 1999 the Warsaw Court of appeal dismissed T’s appeal against that decision.

On 24 May 1999 the Regional Court held a hearing. It dismissed T’s request for a legal-aid lawyer and for transmitting the case to another court. T challenged another judge, which resulted in staying the proceedings until the adoption of a decision on T’s petition.

On 17 June 1999 the court dismissed the challenge as unsubstantiated and again imposed a PLN 500 fine on him.

On 9 July 1999 it imposed a PLN 1000 fine on T for offending its authority in his pleadings.

On 16 December 1999 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed T’s appeal against the Regional Court’s decision of 17 June 1999.

On 24 March 2000 the Regional Court gave judgment. It granted a divorce and declared T’s fault for the marital breakdown. The court awarded custody of the son to the applicant, limiting T’s rights to decisions concerning the son’s education and health. It obliged T to pay PLN 300 monthly as child support. T lodged an appeal against that judgment.

On 30 November 2000 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed that appeal. T lodged with the Supreme Court a cassation appeal against that judgment.

On 26 February 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed that appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the Convention that the proceedings had exceeded a reasonable time. She further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that Polish law did not provide for an effective remedy in respect of the unreasonable length of proceedings.

THE LAW

On 11 December 2001 the Court decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.

On 29 November 2002 the Court received the following declaration from the respondent Government:

“I declare that, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case, the Government of Poland offer to pay 10,000 zlotys to Małgorzata Strzałkowska . 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.”

On 6 December 2002 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 10,000 zlotys 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 Note have reached.”

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). It is satisfied that respect for human rights does not require the continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Françoise Elens-Passos Nicolas Bratza                   Deputy Registrar President