by Bogusław HAMERSKI
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 March 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr L. Garlicki,
Ms L. Mijović,
Mr J. Šikuta, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 January 2002,
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 applicant, Mr Bogusław Hamerski, was a Polish national who was born in 1952 and lived in Jelenia Góra, Poland. On 3 August 2002 the applicant died. His wife, Mrs Halina Hamerska, informed the Court that she wished to pursue the case.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 15 January 1993 the applicant lodged with the Jelenia Góra Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) a civil action for payment.
The trial court held hearings on 19 May and 5 July 1993 and subsequently on 30 June and 16 December 1994. The court ordered that one expert opinion be prepared.
On 30 December 1994 the Regional Court dismissed the action. The applicant appealed against the judgment.
On 22 March 1995 the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) held a hearing. On 31 March 1995 the appellate court allowed the appeal and remitted the case.
It appears that the trial court held several hearings and decided that a new expert opinion should be prepared.
On 10 November 1998 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court gave judgment in which it partly allowed the action. The applicant lodged an appeal against it.
On 25 February 1999 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. Subsequently, the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).
On 8 August 2001 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the cassation appeal.
The applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, about the unreasonable length of the proceedings.
On 17 January 2006 the Court received the following declaration signed by the respondent Government:
“I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 8,000 (eight thousand Polish zlotys) to Mrs Halina Hamerska 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 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 3 February 2006 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant’s wife:
“I, Halina Hamerska, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN 8,000 (eight thousand 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 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 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 and to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Michael O’Boyle Nicolas Bratza
HAMERSKI v. POLAND DECISION
HAMERSKI v. POLAND DECISION