FIRST SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 19170\/15
\nHenryk GRZE\u015aK\u00d3W
\nagainst Poland<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18\u00a0December 2018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Ksenija Turkovi\u0107, President,
\nKrzysztof Wojtyczek,
\nArmen Harutyunyan, judges,
\nand Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 March 2015,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 13 June 2017 requesting the Court to strike part of the application out of the list of cases and the applicant\u2019s reply to that declaration,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Mr Henryk Grze\u015bk\u00f3w, is a Polish national, who was born in 1972 and lives in \u015awiebodzin.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0The Polish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, and subsequently by Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention of overcrowding and inadequate living conditions during his detention in Mi\u0119dzyrzec Remand Centre. He further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that he had been deprived of his right of access to a court.<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 February 2017 notice of the application was given to the Government.<\/p>\n
The circumstances of the case<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was detained in Mi\u0119dzyrzec Remand Centre between 16\u00a0March 2005 and 21 September 2006 (a period of one year, six months and six days).<\/p>\n
6.\u00a0\u00a0According to the applicant, throughout the entire period of his detention at that centre, he was kept in a cell where the space per person was below the statutory minimum of 3 sq. m.<\/p>\n
7.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 September 2014 the applicant brought a civil action against the State Treasury for infringement of his personal rights due to overcrowding and inadequate conditions of his detention in Mi\u0119dzyrzec Remand Centre between 16 March 2005 and 21 September 2006.<\/p>\n
8.\u00a0\u00a0At the same time as lodging his legal action, the applicant applied to be exempted from payment of court fees under section 102 of the Law of 28\u00a0July 2005 on Court Fees in Civil Proceedings. The amount of the fees payable in his case was 4,000 Polish zlotys (PLN \u2013 approximately 941 euros (EUR)).<\/p>\n
9.\u00a0\u00a0At the time of lodging his action, the applicant was again detained in Mi\u0119dzyrzec Remand Centre. The applicant submitted a certificate from the Governor of the remand centre, confirming that he was not employed there. The document also attested that applicant had PLN 60.02 (approximately EUR 14) in his account, but that he could not use it for his own purposes as it was kept in the so-called \u201ciron savings box\u201d (kasa \u017celazna).<\/p>\n
10.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 October 2014 the Gorz\u00f3w Wielkopolski District Court, acting through a court officer (referendarz s\u0105dowy), refused to exempt the applicant from payment of the court fees.<\/p>\n
11.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant lodged an appeal against the court officer\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n
12.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 October 2014 the Gorz\u00f3w Wielkopolski Regional Court upheld the decision made by the court officer.<\/p>\n
13.\u00a0\u00a0As the applicant did not pay the court fees, the Gorz\u00f3w Wielkopolski Regional Court decided to return his civil action on 19 November 2014.<\/p>\n
COMPLAINTS<\/p>\n
14.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention of overcrowding and inadequate conditions of his detention in Mi\u0119dzyrzec Remand Centre between 16 March 2005 and 21 September 2006. He also complained, under Article 6 \u00a7 1, that he had been deprived of his right of access to a court.<\/p>\n
THE LAW<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0Complaint under Article 3<\/p>\n
15.\u00a0\u00a0Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained of overcrowding and inadequate conditions of his detention in Mi\u0119dzyrzec Remand Centre between 16 March 2005 and 21 September 2006. This Article provides as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n
16.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued that the applicant had failed to make use of remedies of a compensatory nature under the provisions of Articles 23 and\u00a024 of the Civil Code. In this respect, referring to the cases of \u0141atak v.\u00a0Poland ((dec.), no. 52070\/08, 12 October 2010) and \u0141omi\u0144ski v. Poland ((dec.), no. 33502\/09, 12 October 2010), they pointed out that the Court had already held that a civil action under Article 24, read in conjunction with Article 448, of the Civil Code could be considered an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. Moreover, the Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 3 was inadmissible due to non-compliance with the six-month rule. The applicant did not comment on these submissions.<\/p>\n
17.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has held that, with regard to allegations of overcrowding and inadequate conditions of detention, a civil action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code could be considered an \u201ceffective remedy\u201d for the purposes of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention as from 17\u00a0March 2010, having regard to the three-year limitation period for lodging such an action. Accordingly, the Court has held that essentially the applicant concerned should bring a civil action for the infringement of personal rights and compensation in any cases in which, in June 2008, the alleged violation had either been remedied by placing the applicant in Convention-compliant conditions, or which had ended ipso facto because the applicant had been released (see \u0141atak,\u00a7 85, and \u0141omi\u0144ski, \u00a7 76, both cited above).<\/p>\n
18.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the applicant\u2019s detention ended on 21\u00a0September 2006. Given the three-year limitation period for lodging an action under Articles 24 and 448 of the Civil Code, the applicant\u2019s claim regarding inadequate conditions of his detention had already become time\u2011barred by 17 March 2010. Therefore, at the relevant time the applicant had no \u201ceffective remedy\u201d for the purposes of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see Musia\u0142ek and Baczy\u0144ski v. Poland, no. 32798\/02, \u00a7 113, 26\u00a0July 2011, and Okrzesik v. Poland (dec.), no. 20469\/11, 1 October 2013) and should have lodged his complaint under Article 3 with the Court.<\/p>\n
19.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that where it is clear from the outset that the applicant has no effective remedy, the six-month period runs from the date on which the act complained of took place or from the date on which the applicant was directly affected by or became aware of such an act or had knowledge of its adverse effects (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064\/90 and 8 others, \u00a7 157, ECHR 2009).<\/p>\n
20.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that the complaint under Article 3 has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0Complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 1<\/p>\n
21.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that his right of access to court had been breached as the court had wrongly refused to grant him an exemption from the court fees. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention which provides:<\/p>\n
\u201cIn the determination of his civil rights and obligations …, everyone is entitled to a … hearing … by [a] … tribunal established by law. …\u201d<\/p>\n
22.\u00a0\u00a0By a letter of 13 June 2017 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They also requested that the Court strike out this part of the application in accordance with Article\u00a037 of the Convention in the light of the declaration.<\/p>\n
23.\u00a0\u00a0The declaration provided as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201cthe Government hereby wish to express \u2013 by way of the unilateral declaration \u2013 their acknowledgment of violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention due to rejection of the applicant\u2019s motion for exemption from the court fees. Simultaneously, the Government declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of 8 000 PLN (eight thousand Polish zlotys) which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court\u2019s case-law in similar cases (Bednarek v. Poland, no. 57374\/09, decision of 25\u00a0August 2015; Mazurkiewicz v. Poland, no. 70356\/11, decision of 23 June 2015; Grzegorzewicz v. Poland no. 51704\/11, decision of 19 November 2013) and the particular circumstances of the foregoing case, in particular the fact that even though the applicant would have been exempted from the court fees, the proscribed time-limit for his claims for compensation had expired. 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 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simply 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 period plus three percentage points…<\/p>\n
The Government respectfully suggest that the above declaration might be accepted by the Court as \u2018any other reason\u2019 justifying the striking out of the case of the Court\u2019s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention…\u201d<\/p>\n
24.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant did not submit his comments on the Government\u2019s declaration within the time-limit fixed by the Court.<\/p>\n
25.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that Article\u00a037 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application or part of it 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\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c), in particular, enables the Court to strike a case out of its list if:<\/p>\n
\u201cfor any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application\u201d.<\/p>\n
26.\u00a0\u00a0It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application or part of it under Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(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.<\/p>\n
27.\u00a0\u00a0To 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 (see Tahsin Acarv. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.\u00a026307\/95, \u00a7\u00a7 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no.\u00a011602\/02, 26June2007; and Sulwi\u0144ska v. Poland (dec.), no.\u00a028953\/03, 18\u00a0September\u00a02007).<\/p>\n
28.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government\u2019s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed \u2013 which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases \u2013 the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c)).<\/p>\n
29.\u00a0\u00a0Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application can be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 \u00a7 2 of the Convention (see\u00a0Josipovi\u0107 v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369\/07, 4March 2008).<\/p>\n
30.\u00a0\u00a0In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in so far as it relates to the complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 1.<\/p>\n
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government\u2019s declaration regarding the complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;<\/p>\n
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) of the Convention<\/p>\n
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.<\/p>\n
Done in English and notified in writing on 24 January 2019.<\/p>\n
Renata Degener\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ksenija Turkovi\u0107
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n