Last Updated on October 3, 2020 by LawEuro
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42249/15
Łukasz JĘDRUCH
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 application lodged on 12 August 2015,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 8 November 2016 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, MrŁukaszJędruch, is a Polish national who was born in 1984 and lives in Zlotow. He was represented before the Court by Mr P. Kładoczny, from the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights
2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs J. Chrzanowska of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. The applicant was charged with murder, assault and battery. In 2008 criminal proceedings against him were discontinued on the grounds that he could not be held criminally liable on account of his mental illness (schizophrenia). The court applied a security measure and placed him in a psychiatric hospital. On 14 October 2014 expert psychiatrists noted in their periodical opinion that there had been an improvement in the applicant’s condition and recommended his release. However, the courts refused to release him on the grounds that his family could not guarantee that he would continue his treatment if at liberty. The applicant was eventually released on 21 December 2015.
4. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that despite the fact that the experts had confirmed in October 2014 that his condition had improved the domestic courts had refused to release him from hospital.
5. On 4 May 2016 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
6. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts had refused to release him from a psychiatric hospital despite the fact that his condition had improved.
7. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, the Government informed the Court by a letter of 8 November 2016 that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested that the Court 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 a unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement that the applicant was deprived of his liberty after 14 October 2014 in breach of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention.
Simultaneously, the Government declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of PLN 25,000 (twenty five thousand Polish zlotys), which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the individual circumstances of the present case, as well as the Court’s case-law in respect of 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 of the date of the notification of the decision taken by the Court, pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 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 the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period, plus three percentage points …
The Government respectfully suggest that the above declaration might be accepted by the Court as [an example of] ‘any other reason’ to justify striking the case out of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention …”
8. By a letter of 14 December 2016 the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. Firstly, he argued that his case could not be considered “repetitive” since none of the cases referred to by the Government had concerned a similar issue that is a disregard of psychiatric opinions by the domestic courts.
9. Secondly, the applicant alleged that the amount of just satisfaction proposed by the Government was too low.
10. Thirdly, he was of the view that his case was not exceptional but highlighted a systemic problem relating to involuntary psychiatric detention in Poland.
11. 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”.
12. 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.
13. To that 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).
14. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about a violation of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention (see, for example, K.C.v. Poland, no. 31199/12, 25 November 2014; Kędzior v. Poland, no. 45026/07, 16 October 2012; Biziuk v. Poland (no. 2), no. 24580/06, 17 January 2012; and Grabowski v. Poland, no. 57722/12, 30 June 2015).
15. 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)).
16. Moreover, in the 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).
17. 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).
18. 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 Article 5 § 1 (e) 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 8 February 2018.
Renata Degener AlešPejchal
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply