Last Updated on October 3, 2020 by LawEuro
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 60521/09 and 6016/13
Grzegorz Jacek SKOWROŃSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 16 January 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Aleš Pejchal, President,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Jovan Ilievski, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 29 October 2009 and 21 December 2012 respectively,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 3 March 2016 requesting the Court to strike the application no. 60521/09 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 Grzegorz Jacek Skowroński, is a Polish national, who was born in 1975 and is detained in Brzeg. In the first application he was represented before the Court by Ms J. Grudzień.
2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of three sets of proceedings 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. On 7 July 2015 the applications were communicated to the Polish Government pursuant to Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, by virtue of the ninth operative provision of the pilot-judgment given in the case of Rutkowski and Others v. Poland (see Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, §§ 223-228 and the ninth operative provision, 7 July 2015).
5. By letter dated 3 March 2016 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application no. 60521/09. The Government acknowledged a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of three sets of proceedings complained of by the applicant 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 the following sums: 6,570 Polish zlotys (PLN) in respect of the first set of proceedings, PLN 8,470 in respect of the second set of proceedings and PLN 8,890 in respect of the third set of proceedings. 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 undertake 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 Załuska and Rogalska v. Poland and 398 other applications (dec.), nos. 53491/10 and 72286/10, §§ 23-25, 20 June 2017). They further requested the Court to strike out the application 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.
7. By letter of 6 May 2016 the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration.
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 declaration in 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 (dec), cited above, §§ 51-53).
12. 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)).
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 application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
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 cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in the application no. 60521/09 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 accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 8 February 2018.
Renata Degener Aleš Pejchal
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply