Last Updated on October 3, 2020 by LawEuro
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 19170/15
Henryk GRZEŚKÓW
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 December 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Ksenija Turković, President,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Armen Harutyunyan, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 March 2015,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 13 June 2017 requesting the Court to strike part of the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Henryk Grześków, is a Polish national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Świebodzin.
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. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention of overcrowding and inadequate living conditions during his detention in Międzyrzec Remand Centre. He further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had been deprived of his right of access to a court.
4. On 9 February 2017 notice of the application was given to the Government.
The circumstances of the case
5. The applicant was detained in Międzyrzec Remand Centre between 16 March 2005 and 21 September 2006 (a period of one year, six months and six days).
6. According to the applicant, throughout the entire period of his detention at that centre, he was kept in a cell where the space per person was below the statutory minimum of 3 sq. m.
7. On 12 September 2014 the applicant brought a civil action against the State Treasury for infringement of his personal rights due to overcrowding and inadequate conditions of his detention in Międzyrzec Remand Centre between 16 March 2005 and 21 September 2006.
8. At the same time as lodging his legal action, the applicant applied to be exempted from payment of court fees under section 102 of the Law of 28 July 2005 on Court Fees in Civil Proceedings. The amount of the fees payable in his case was 4,000 Polish zlotys (PLN – approximately 941 euros (EUR)).
9. At the time of lodging his action, the applicant was again detained in Międzyrzec Remand Centre. The applicant submitted a certificate from the Governor of the remand centre, confirming that he was not employed there. The document also attested that applicant had PLN 60.02 (approximately EUR 14) in his account, but that he could not use it for his own purposes as it was kept in the so-called “iron savings box” (kasa żelazna).
10. On 9 October 2014 the Gorzów Wielkopolski District Court, acting through a court officer (referendarz sądowy), refused to exempt the applicant from payment of the court fees.
11. The applicant lodged an appeal against the court officer’s decision.
12. On 30 October 2014 the Gorzów Wielkopolski Regional Court upheld the decision made by the court officer.
13. As the applicant did not pay the court fees, the Gorzów Wielkopolski Regional Court decided to return his civil action on 19 November 2014.
COMPLAINTS
14. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention of overcrowding and inadequate conditions of his detention in Międzyrzec Remand Centre between 16 March 2005 and 21 September 2006. He also complained, under Article 6 § 1, that he had been deprived of his right of access to a court.
THE LAW
A. Complaint under Article 3
15. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained of overcrowding and inadequate conditions of his detention in Międzyrzec Remand Centre between 16 March 2005 and 21 September 2006. This Article provides as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
16. The Government argued that the applicant had failed to make use of remedies of a compensatory nature under the provisions of Articles 23 and 24 of the Civil Code. In this respect, referring to the cases of Łatak v. Poland ((dec.), no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010) and Łomiński v. Poland ((dec.), no. 33502/09, 12 October 2010), they pointed out that the Court had already held that a civil action under Article 24, read in conjunction with Article 448, of the Civil Code could be considered an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Moreover, the Government submitted that the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 was inadmissible due to non-compliance with the six-month rule. The applicant did not comment on these submissions.
17. The Court has held that, with regard to allegations of overcrowding and inadequate conditions of detention, a civil action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code could be considered an “effective remedy” for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as from 17 March 2010, having regard to the three-year limitation period for lodging such an action. Accordingly, the Court has held that essentially the applicant concerned should bring a civil action for the infringement of personal rights and compensation in any cases in which, in June 2008, the alleged violation had either been remedied by placing the applicant in Convention-compliant conditions, or which had ended ipso facto because the applicant had been released (see Łatak,§ 85, and Łomiński, § 76, both cited above).
18. The Court notes that the applicant’s detention ended on 21 September 2006. Given the three-year limitation period for lodging an action under Articles 24 and 448 of the Civil Code, the applicant’s claim regarding inadequate conditions of his detention had already become time‑barred by 17 March 2010. Therefore, at the relevant time the applicant had no “effective remedy” for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Musiałek and Baczyński v. Poland, no. 32798/02, § 113, 26 July 2011, and Okrzesik v. Poland (dec.), no. 20469/11, 1 October 2013) and should have lodged his complaint under Article 3 with the Court.
19. The Court reiterates that where it is clear from the outset that the applicant has no effective remedy, the six-month period runs from the date on which the act complained of took place or from the date on which the applicant was directly affected by or became aware of such an act or had knowledge of its adverse effects (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 157, ECHR 2009).
20. It follows that the complaint under Article 3 has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
B. Complaint under Article 6 § 1
21. The applicant complained that his right of access to court had been breached as the court had wrongly refused to grant him an exemption from the court fees. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention which provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations …, everyone is entitled to a … hearing … by [a] … tribunal established by law. …”
22. By a letter of 13 June 2017 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They also requested that the Court strike out this part of the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention in the light of the declaration.
23. The declaration provided as follows:
“the Government hereby wish to express – by way of the unilateral declaration – their acknowledgment of violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention due to rejection of the applicant’s motion for exemption from the court fees. Simultaneously, the Government declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of 8 000 PLN (eight thousand Polish zlotys) which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case-law in similar cases (Bednarek v. Poland, no. 57374/09, decision of 25 August 2015; Mazurkiewicz v. Poland, no. 70356/11, decision of 23 June 2015; Grzegorzewicz v. Poland no. 51704/11, decision of 19 November 2013) and the particular circumstances of the foregoing case, in particular the fact that even though the applicant would have been exempted from the court fees, the proscribed time-limit for his claims for compensation had expired. 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 simply 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 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 list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention…”
24. The applicant did not submit his comments on the Government’s declaration within the time-limit fixed by the Court.
25. The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application or part of it 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), in particular, enables the Court 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”.
26. It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application or part of it 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.
27. To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acarv. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26June2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
28. 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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
29. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application can be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4March 2008).
30. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in so far as it relates to the complaint under Article 6 § 1.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration regarding the complaint under Article 6 § 1 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 so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 24 January 2019.
Renata Degener Ksenija Turković
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply