FIRST SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 8938\/04
\nZbigniew FARMUS
\nagainst Poland<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11\u00a0December 2018 as a Chamber composed of:<\/p>\n
KsenijaTurkovi\u0107, President,
\nKrzysztof Wojtyczek,
\nPauliineKoskelo, judges,
\nand Renata Degener, DeputySection Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 February 2004,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 12 September 2018 requesting the Court to strike 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
FACTS AND PROCEDURE<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Mr ZbigniewFarmus, is a Polish national, who was born in 1949 and lives in Warszawa. He was represented before the Court by Mr B. B\u0105k, a lawyer practising in Legionowo.<\/p>\n
The Polish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agents, Ms J. Chrzanowska and, subsequently, Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Articles 5 \u00a7 3, 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.<\/p>\n
The application had been communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n
THE LAW<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained about the length of his detention on remand, unfairness of criminal proceedings against him and restrictions on his liberty of movement imposed upon his release from detention. He relied on Articles 5 \u00a7 3 and 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No.\u00a04 to the Convention.<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 12 September 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\u00a037 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
The declaration provided as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201cI.\u00a0\u00a0THE GOVERNMENT\u2019S UNILATERAL DECLARATION<\/p>\n
The Government hereby wish to express \u2013 by way of the unilateral declaration \u2013 their acknowledgement of the violations arising from the facts of the preset case which were the object of the Court\u2019s communication. Simultaneously, they declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 13000 (thirteen thousand euros) which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the individual circumstances of the present case, as well as the Court\u2019s case-law in similar cases (see, among others, Mierzejewski v. Poland, application no. 2916\/13, judgment of 04.11.2014; Chojnacki v. Poland, application no. 62076\/11, judgment of 20.07.2017 in respect of the breach of Article 5 5 3 of the Convention and Ga\u0142 v. Poland, application no. 43485\/07, decision of 06.09.2011; Kobiz v. Poland, application no.\u00a013571\/10, decision of 10.03.2015 in respect of the breach of Article 2 of Protocol no.\u00a04 of the Convention).<\/p>\n
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 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 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0By a letter of 15 October 2018, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the sum proposed was inadequate.<\/p>\n
6.\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 application\u201d.<\/p>\n
7.\u00a0\u00a0It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37\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
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.\u00a026307\/95, \u00a7\u00a7 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no.\u00a011602\/02, 26\u00a0June 2007; and Sulwi\u0144ska v. Poland (dec.), no.\u00a028953\/03, 18\u00a0September\u00a02007).<\/p>\n
8.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Convention rights invoked by the applicant (see, for example, De Tommaso v. Italy[GC], no. 43395\/09, \u00a7\u00a7 110-127, 23 February 2017;Mia\u017cd\u017cyk v. Poland, no. 23592\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 29-42, 24 January 2012; Kauczor v.\u00a0Poland, no. 45219\/06, \u00a7\u00a742-47, with further references to the Court\u2019s case-law, 3 February 2009; A. E.v. Poland, no. 14480\/04, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a046-50, 31\u00a0March 2009; and Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a055-65, 24\u00a0April 2007). Having 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 application (Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c)).<\/p>\n
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 \u00a7 1 in fine).<\/p>\n
9.\u00a0\u00a0Finally, 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\u00a037 \u00a7 2 of the Convention (Josipovi\u0107 v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369\/07, 4\u00a0March 2008).<\/p>\n
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.<\/p>\n
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government\u2019s declaration 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 accordance with Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) of the Convention.<\/p>\n
Done in English and notified in writing on 10 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\u00a0 KsenijaTurkovi\u0107
\nDeputy Section 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 President<\/p>\n