FIRST SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 63624\/09
\nZdzis\u0142aw SZOPA against Poland
\nand 3 other applications
\n(see list appended)<\/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,<\/p>\n
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 5 October 2018 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants\u2019 reply to that declarations,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
FACTS AND PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Polish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska and subsequently Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of criminal proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the ineffectiveness of a civil law remedy for the excessive length of proceedings.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applications had been communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by letters of 5\u00a0October 2018 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. In each case the Government acknowledged a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 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\u00a06 \u00a7 1. They offered payment of sums specified in respect of each applicant in a\u00a0table appended to their declarations. The sums referred to above, which are specified in the appendix to the decision, 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 \u00a7 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. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article\u00a037 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On various dates in November 2018 the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations.<\/p>\n 8.\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 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) enables the Court in particular 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 applications\u201d.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an applications under Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0To this end, the Court has examined the declarationin the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. 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, 26 June 2007; and Sulwi\u0144ska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953\/03, 18\u00a0September\u00a02007).<\/p>\n The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one\u2019s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v.\u00a0France [GC], no. 30979\/96, \u00a7 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v.\u00a0Italy [GC], no. 64886\/01, \u00a7\u00a7 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Majewski v.\u00a0Poland, no.52690\/99, 11 October 2005; Wende and Kuk\u00f3wka v.\u00a0Poland, no.56026\/00, 10 May 2007; and Rutkowski and Others v.\u00a0Poland, nos. 72287\/10 and 2 others, \u00a7 160, 7 July 2015).<\/p>\n 11.\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 the applications (Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c)).<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0Moreover, 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 applications (Article 37 \u00a7 1 in fine).<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications could be restored to the list in accordance with Article\u00a037 \u00a7 2 of the Convention (Josipovi\u0107 v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369\/07, 4\u00a0March 2008).<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list in their part concerning the complaints under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Otheralleged violations of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants in cases 51416\/16 and 66916\/17 further complained that the length of the proceedings complained of had infringed their rights to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the facts of the case, the Government\u2019s declarations, and its decision to strike out the complaints under Articles\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 and 13 of the Convention, the Court considers that the main legal question raised in the present applications has been resolved. It concludes, therefore, that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the applicants\u2019 remaining complaints (see, mutatis mutandis, Kamil Uzun v.\u00a0Turkey, no. 37410\/97, \u00a7 64, 10 May 2007, and Zangh\u00ec v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-C, p. 47, \u00a7\u00a023).<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government\u2019s declaration under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;<\/p>\n Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in their part concerning the complaints under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention in accordance with Article 37 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention;<\/p>\n Holds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 24 January 2019.<\/p>\n RenataDegener\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 Ksenija Turkovi\u0107 <\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/p>\n Date of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n Place of residence<\/strong><\/td>\n 14\/07\/1951<\/p>\n Warszawa<\/td>\n 12\/11\/1942<\/p>\n O\u015bwi\u0119cim<\/td>\n 30\/01\/1974<\/p>\n KOZIENICE<\/td>\n 10\/04\/1953<\/p>\n Krakow<\/td>\n
\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\n\n
\n No.<\/strong><\/td>\n Application no.<\/strong><\/td>\n Lodged on<\/strong><\/td>\n Applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n Represented by<\/strong><\/td>\n Amount proposed in Unilateral Declaration<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n 1<\/td>\n 63624\/09<\/td>\n 21\/10\/2009<\/td>\n Zdzis\u0142aw SZOPA<\/strong><\/p>\n Agata BZDYN<\/td>\n PLN 12,480<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2<\/td>\n 29233\/12<\/td>\n 18\/04\/2011<\/td>\n Stanis\u0142awa GIBEK<\/strong><\/p>\n Joanna WIS\u0141A-P\u0141ONKA<\/td>\n PLN 10,890<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 3<\/td>\n 51416\/16<\/td>\n 25\/08\/2016<\/td>\n Ma\u0142gorzata CASTELAZO R\u00d3\u017bYCKA<\/strong><\/p>\n Monika G\u0104SIOROWSKA<\/td>\n PLN 14,490<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 4<\/td>\n 66916\/17<\/td>\n 01\/09\/2017<\/td>\n Jolanta Romualda ORKISZ<\/strong><\/p>\n Zbigniew CICHO\u0143<\/td>\n PLN 42,370<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n