[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Slawomir PRZYBYSZ v Poland - 9573/05 [2008] ECHR 1006 (16 September 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1006.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 1006

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 9573/05
by Sławomir PRZYBYSZ
against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 16 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 February 2005,

Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Sławomir Przybysz, is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Nowa Sucha. 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.

1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant

On 22 May 1996 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having taken an active part in riots after a football match. The applicant was released on the same day.

On 5 August 1996 the Warsaw District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) issued a bill of indictment against the applicant. On 12 January 1997 the prosecutor filed the bill of indictment with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The first hearing was held on 10 July 2002. Further hearings were held on 24 August 2004, 30 September 2004, 15 October 2004, 22 November 2004, 28 January 2005 and 25 February 2005.

On 16 March 2005 the Warsaw District Court sentenced the applicant to 6 months’ imprisonment with the execution of the sentence stayed for a probationary period of 2 years and imposed a fine on him. On 21 November 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as manifestly ill-founded.

2. Proceedings under the 2004 Act.

In October 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court under section 5 of the Act 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 postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). He also claimed just satisfaction in the amount of PLN 10,000 (approx. EUR 2,500).

On 23 December 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court acknowledged that the impugned proceedings had been excessively lengthy. It found that an “unreasonable delay” had occurred between the date of filing the bill of indictment in January 1997 and the date of the first hearing held in July 2002. The Regional Court found no unreasonable delays after July 2002. However, it considered that the proceedings had lasted significantly longer than was necessary to examine the charges. The Regional Court refused to grant any just satisfaction to the applicant, holding that “the excessive length of the proceedings, although evident, had not been of such significance as to entitle the applicant to an award of just satisfaction.” In its decision the Regional Court stated that “the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant” had been remedied by acknowledging the breach of his right to a prompt trial.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about a violation of his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time.

THE LAW

On 29 April 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 13,000 (thirteen thousand) to Mr Sławomir Przybysz 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.”

On 6 March 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“I, Sławomir Przybysz, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN 13,000 (thirteen thousand) 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.”

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). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza 
Registrar President