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

FIRST SECTION
DECISION

Application no. 32267/13
Rafał ZYCH against Poland
and 74 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 February, 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 by 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 February, 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.

THE LAW

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

A.  Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention

7.  On various dates in 2018 sixty applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations. The remaining fifteen applicants made no comments on the Government’s unilateral declarations.

8.  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”.

9.  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 applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued.

10.  To this end, the Court has examined the declarationsin the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar 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).

11.  The conclusions reached by the Court on admissions and undertakings contained in the Government’s declarations in the first group of 400 cases submitted in the pilot-judgment procedure apply to the present case (see Załuska and Rogalska v. Poland and 398 other applications (dec.), nos. 53491/10 and 72286/10, §§ 51-53, 20 June 2017).

12.  Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, 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 applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

13.  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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

14.  Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications 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).

15.  In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list in their part concerning the complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention.

B.  Other alleged violations of the Convention

16.  The twenty-seven applicants indicated in the attached Appendix also raised a number of complains under other Articles of the Convention.

17.  Having regard to the facts of the case, the Government’s declarations, and its decision to strike out the complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, the Court considers that the main legal question raised in the present applications has been resolved. It concludes, therefore, that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the applicants’ remaining complaints (see, mutatis mutandis, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007).

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in their part concerning the complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Holds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints.

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

Renata Degener                                                 Ksenija Turković
Deputy Registrar                                                      President

APPENDIX