[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Tadeusz STRUCZYNSKI v Poland - 47595/06 [2008] ECHR 1863 (16 December 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1863.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 1863

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

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 47595/06
by Tadeusz STRUCZYŃSKI
against Poland

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

Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Ján Šikuta,
Mihai Poalelungi,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,

and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 November 2006,

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 Tadeusz Struczyński, is a Polish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Toruń. 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.

On 2 and 3 March 1999 the applicant concluded contracts for the sale of goods with a certain L.S. and G.S. Accordingly, he signed the relevant documents. However, the goods sold were allegedly the property of a certain Z.R., who had not authorised the applicant to dispose of them.

Subsequently, on 5 March 1999 a criminal investigation was initiated against the applicant by the Wrocław District Prosecutor’s Office on suspicion of theft. In the course of the investigation it had to be determined whether the applicant had signed the contract for the sale of goods which had not belonged to him. For this reason, on an unspecified date it was decided to have an expert in graphology summoned to give an opinion.

Since no graphologist was allegedly available at the material time, the proceedings against the applicant were suspended by the Wrocław District Prosecutor in a decision of 23 March 2000.

On 6 November 2006 the Wrocław District Prosecutor decided to have the proceedings in the applicant’s case resumed as it had finally been possible to obtain an expert’s opinion. The applicant appealed, alleging that after the proceedings had been suspended for a period of six years, they had lost their purpose and for this reason should have been discontinued.

On 30 November 2006 the decision was upheld by the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor.

On 10 November 2006 the Wrocław District Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Wrocław District Court. The applicant was charged with theft. The proceedings entered their judicial stage.

B.  Relevant domestic law and practice

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the Law 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”), are set out in the Court’s decisions in the cases of Charzyński v. Poland no. 15212/03 §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V) and Ratajczyk v. Poland no. 11215/02 ECHR 2005-VIII) and the judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained in substance under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the pre-trial stage of the criminal proceedings pending against him had been excessive.

THE LAW

On 14 November 2008 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 17,000 Polish zlotys to Mr Tadeusz Struczyński 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 18 November 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“I, Tadeusz Struczyński, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of 17,000 Polish zlotys 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 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