FIRST SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 60537\/16
\nPiotr SZCZ\u0118SNY
\nagainst Poland<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13\u00a0November 2018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Ale\u0161 Pejchal, President,
\nTim Eicke,
\nJovan Ilievski, judges,<\/p>\n
andAbel Campos, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 October 2016,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 30 May 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<\/strong><\/p>\n The applicant, Mr Piotr Szcz\u0119sny, is a Polish national, who was born in\u00a01971 and lives in \u017belech\u00f3w. He was represented before the Court by Mr\u00a0S.\u00a0Adamczyk, a lawyer practising in Katowice.<\/p>\n The 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 The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention.<\/p>\n On 3 March 2015 the Siedlce Regional Court had granted the applicant PLN 2,000 (approximately EUR 500) in compensation for the fact that he had been detained in overcrowded cells in Siedlce Prison for approximately 6months.<\/p>\n On 2 June 2017 the application was communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 30\u00a0May 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 \u201cThe Government hereby wish to express \u2013 by way of the unilateral declaration \u2013 their acknowledgement of violation of Article 3 of the Convention due to the conditions of applicant\u2019s detention, in particular overcrowding, in Siedlce Prison. Simultaneously, the Government declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of PLN\u00a012,000 (twelve 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\u2019s case-law in similar cases (seeO\u0142owski v. Poland, application no.\u00a066417\/10, decision of 9.09.2014; Donke v. Poland, application no. 17442\/13, decision of 9.09.2014).<\/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 final ruling taken by the Court pursuant to Article\u00a037 \u00a7\u00a01 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 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 lists of cases, as referred to in Article\u00a037 \u00a7\u00a01 (c) of the Convention …\u201d<\/p>\n By a letter of 28 September 2018, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the amount proposed by the Government was too low.<\/p>\n 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\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 It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application 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 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 June 2007; and Sulwi\u0144ska v. Poland (dec.), no.\u00a028953\/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 systematic violation of Article 3 of the Convention due to the inadequate detention conditions, in particular overcrowding (see, for example, Orchowski v.\u00a0Poland, no. 17885\/04, 22 October 2009, and \u0141atak v. Poland (dec.), no.\u00a052070\/08, 12 October 2010).<\/p>\n 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 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\u00a037 \u00a7 2 of the Convention (Josipovi\u0107 v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369\/07, 4 March 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 under Article 3 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 accordance with Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) of the Convention.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 6 December 2018.<\/p>\n Abel Campos\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\u00a0 Ale\u0161Pejchal
\nRegistrar\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n