Last Updated on May 13, 2019 by LawEuro
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 77501/16
Andrzej RYBA and Kazimierz RYBA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 November 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Ksenija Turković, President,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Pauliine Koskelo, judges,
and Abel Campos, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 December 2016,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 20 February 2018 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ replies to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The first applicant, Mr Andrzej Ryba, and the second applicant, Mr Kazimierz Ryba, are Polish nationals, who were born in 1953 and live in Krakow.
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 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 insufficient redress for the excessive length of proceedings granted to them by the national courts.
4. By letter dated 20 February 2018 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. 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 5,800 Polish zlotys to each of the two applicants. 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 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
A. As regards the second applicant who accepted the Government’s unilateral proposal as to payment of just satisfaction
5. On 9 April 2018, the Court received a letter from the second applicant, Mr Kazimierz Ryba, informing the Court that he had agreed to the terms of the Government’s declaration.
6. The Court finds that following the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the second applicant and the Government.
7. 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).
8. The same conclusions apply to the instant case. The Court therefore takes note of the friendly settlement 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.
B. As regards the first applicant who refused the Government’s proposal
9. By letter dated 27 March 2018 the first applicant, Mr Andrzej Ryba, indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration.
10. 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”.
11. 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.
12. 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).
13. The conclusions reached by the Court on admissions and undertakings contained in the Government’s declarations submitted in the pilot-judgment procedure in the case Rutkowski and Others (cited above) apply to the present case (see Załuska and Rogalska (dec), cited above, §§ 51-53).
14. 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)).
15. 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).
16. 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, 4March 2008).
C. Conclusion
17. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application in respect of the second applicant out of its list of cases in accordance with Articles 37 § 1 (b) and 39 § 3 of the Convention;
Decides to strike the application in respect of the first applicant out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 6 December 2018.
Abel Campos KsenijaTurković
Registrar President
Leave a Reply