Last Updated on October 3, 2020 by LawEuro
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no.36275/15
Mariusz SŁOMKA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26 March 2019 as a Committee composed of:
AlešPejchal, President,
Tim Eicke,
Jovan Ilievski, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 July 2015,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 24 October 2018 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr MariuszSłomka, is a Polish national who was born in 1979 and lives in Łęczna. He was represented before the Court by Mr P. Rzeszutko, a lawyer practising in Lublin.
2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska and subsequently by Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. On 4 August 2010 the applicant had a road accident, in which he was seriously injured. On 6 August 2010, still in hospital, the applicant was questioned by the authorities in the absence of a lawyer and under the influence of narcotic painkillers. The applicant confessed to driving under the influence of alcohol and causing the accident in which one person died and two were injured. On 9 December 2013 the District Court sentenced the applicant to five years and six months’ imprisonment, imposed a driving ban of eight years and ordered him to cover the costs of the proceedings for the auxiliary prosecutors. The trial court relied, among other evidence, on the applicant’s confession. The judgment was upheld upon appeal.
4. The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention about the lack of fair hearing on account of lack of time and facilities to prepare defence and inability to defend himself or through legal assistance in the above-mentioned proceedings.
5. The application had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
6. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 24 October 2018 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
7. The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government hereby wish to express – by way of the unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the lack of a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against the applicant in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of the absence of adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence in breach of Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention and of the fact that the applicant was not able to defend himself or through legal assistance of his own choosing in breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention. Simultaneously, they declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of PLN 8,000 (eight thousand Polish zlotys) which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the individual circumstances of the present case, as well as the Court’s case-law in similar cases … The sum referred to above, 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 Convention. 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 periods plus three percentage points.
The Government respectfully suggest that the above declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s lists of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.”
8. The applicant did not comment on the Government’s proposal.
9. The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
10. It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
11. To this end, the Court has examined the declarationin the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the TahsinAcar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
12. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about a violation of the right to a fair hearing, to have adequate time and facilities to prepare defence and the right to defend oneself in person or through legal assistance (see, for example, Salduz v. Turkey[GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008; Pishchalnikov v. Russia, no. 7025/04, 24 September 2009; Płonka v. Poland, no. 20310/02, 31 March 2009; and Durmus v. Poland (dec.), no. 39058/17, 27 June 2017).
13. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
14. Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
15. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
16. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 18 April 2019.
Renata Degener Aleš Pejchal
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply