GAJOS AND OTHERS v. POLAND (European Court of Human Rights)

FIRST SECTION
DECISION

Application no.21667/13
Grzegorz GAJOS against Poland
and 50 other applications
(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 December 2018 as a Committee composed of:

Ksenija Turković, President,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Pauliine Koskelo, judges,

and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 22 June, 7 June and 9 July 2018 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to these declarations,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1.  A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

2.  The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, and subsequently Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

3.  All the applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of proceedings in their cases and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of, or insufficient, redress for the excessive length of proceedings granted to them by the national courts.

4.  The applications were communicated to the Government.

5.  By letters dated 22 June, 7 June and 9 July 2018 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. In each case the Government acknowledged a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of proceedings and violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy, securing sufficient redress for a violation of Article 6 § 1. They offered payment of sums specified in respect of each applicant in a table appended to their declarations. The Government further undertook to adopt a range of general measures in respect of other persons who were victims of similar violations or might be affected by similar violations in the future. The sums referred to above, which are specified in the appendix to the decision, are to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. They 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 these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on each of them, 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. In addition, the Government made a declaration on general measures to be adopted in implementation of the Rutkowski and Others pilot judgment (see Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, 7 July 2015). They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

6.  On various dates in 2018 the Court received letters from the applicants informing the Court that they had all agreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations.

THE LAW

7.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

8.  The Court finds that following the applicants’express agreement to the terms of declarations made by the Government the cases should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties.

9.  The Court has already examined the unilateral declarations submitted by the Government in the pilot-judgment procedure in the case Rutkowski and Others (cited above). It found that, in view of the amounts proposed by the Government in their unilateral declarations on the individual measures of redress, there have been no circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which would require the continued examination of the cases where a friendly settlement has been concluded (see Załuska and Rogalska v. Poland and 398 other applications (dec.), nos. 53491/10 and 72286/10, § 37, 20 June 2017). It has also been satisfied that, having regard to the general measures taken or to be taken in the future by the respondent Government, the settlement was based on “respect for human rights” as interpreted in the context of the pilot‑judgment procedure (see ibid, § 45).

10.  The same conclusions apply to the instant cases. The Court therefore takes note of the friendly settlements reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlements are 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 applications.

11.  In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 24 January 2019.

RenataDegener                                                  KsenijaTurković
DeputyRegistrar                                                       President

Appendix