Last Updated on September 22, 2021 by LawEuro
The applicant, Mr Andrzej Michalski, is a Polish national, who was born in 1978 and is detained in Barczewo Prison. The applicant prisoner complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had waited eight years for the removal of a foreign object from his eye. He also complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the domestic court’s refusal to grant him an exemption from a court fee.
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 78851/16
Andrzej MICHALSKI
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 12 December 2016,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 28 February 2018 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Andrzej Michalski, is a Polish national, who was born in 1978 and is detained in Barczewo Prison.
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 prisoner complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had waited eight years for the removal of a foreign object from his eye. He also complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the domestic court’s refusal to grant him an exemption from a court fee.
4. The application had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
5. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 28 February 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.
The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government hereby wish to express – by way of unilateral declaration – their acknowledgment of violation of Article 3 and Article 6 (1) of the Convention (the removal of a foreign object from the applicant’s eye during his stay in prison as well as the refusal to exempt him from the court fees).
Simultaneously, the Government declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of PLN 10,000 which they consider to be reasonable in the lights of 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.”
6. By a letter of 20 August 2018, the applicant essentially indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration.
7. 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”.
8. 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.
9. 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).
10. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 3 in the context of delayed non-emergency medical procedures (see, mutatis mutandis, Zarzycki v. Poland, no. 15351/03, 12 March 2013; Todorov v. Ukraine, no. 16717/05, 12 January 2012;Dumikyan v. Russia, no. 2961/09, 13 December 2016; and Bujak v. Poland,no. 686/12, 21 March 2017)and of Article 6 in the context of the restriction of the right of access to a court on account of excessive court fees (Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, ECHR 2001‑VI; Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland, no. 39199/98, 26 July 2005, Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland, no. 73547/01, 26 July 2005; Kniat v. Poland, no. 71731/01, 26 July 2005 and Irena Stall v. Poland (strike out) no. 5274/06, 10 March 2009).
11. 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)).
12. 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).
13. The Court considers that this amount should be paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision issued in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to settle within this period, simple interest shall be payable on the amount in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points.
14. 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).
15. 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 Articles 3 and 6 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 6 December 2018.
Abel Campos KsenijaTurković
Registrar President
Leave a Reply