FIRST SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 34934\/14
\nRobert RAKOWSKI
\nagainst Poland<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6\u00a0November 2018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Ksenija Turkovi\u0107, President,
\nKrzysztof Wojtyczek,
\nArmen Harutyunyan, judges,
\nand Abel Campos, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 April 2014,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 20 September 2017 requesting the Court to strike a part of the application out of the list of cases and the applicant\u2019s reply to that declaration,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government in respect of the remainder of the application and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
FACTS AND PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Mr Robert Rakowski, is a Polish national, who was born in 1974 and is detained in \u017bytkowice.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Polish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, and subsequently by\u00a0Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of two sets of criminal proceedings and under Article\u00a013 of the Convention about the lack of, or insufficient, redress for the excessive length of proceedings granted to him by the national courts.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 July 2015 the application was communicated to the Polish Government pursuant to Rule 54 \u00a7 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, by virtue of the ninth operative provision of the pilot-judgment given in the case of Rutkowski and Others v. Poland (see Rutkowski and Others v.\u00a0Poland, nos.\u00a072287\/10 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7 223-228 and the ninth operative provision, 7\u00a0July 2015).<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0First set of proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention<\/em><\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s first complaint concerned unreasonable length of criminal proceedings concerning charges of corruption which lasted from 16\u00a0October 2006 until 24 October 2016. The applicant alleged violation of Article 6 \u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant, provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIn the determination of … any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal …\u201d<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested the complaint regarding the excessive length of the proceedings and requested the Court to declare inadmissible this part of the application. The Government submitted that the applicant had lost his victim status as he had been granted in total 9,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in compensation for excessive length of these criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0As submitted by the Government, the applicant had lodged in total three successful complaints under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaint about breach of the right to have a case examined in an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and in judicial proceedings without undue delay (ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w\u00a0post\u0119powaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i post\u0119powaniu s\u0105dowym bez nieuzasadnionej zw\u0142oki – \u201cthe 2004 Act\u201d).<\/p>\n The first complaint was allowed by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 13\u00a0December 2011 and the applicant was awarded 5,000 PLN in compensation (case no. II S 71\/11). The second complaint was allowed by the Warsaw Regional Court on 3 February 2015 and the applicant was awarded PLN 2,000 in compensation (case no. X S 4\/15). The third complaint was allowed by the Warsaw Regional Court on 10 March 2016 and the applicant was awarded PLN 2,000 in compensation (case\u00a0no.\u00a0X\u00a0S\u00a026\/16). In sum he was awarded PLN 9,000, equivalent to 2,200 euros (EUR). On each occasion the courts acknowledged that the domestic authorities had not dealt with the case with necessary speed and in consequence the applicant\u2019s right to have his case examined without undue delay had been breached.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant in general disagreed with the Government\u2019s objection.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0It is the Court\u2019s settled case-law that where the national authorities have found a violation and their decision constitutes appropriate and sufficient redress, the party concerned can no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. Accordingly an applicant\u2019s status as a victim may depend on compensation being awarded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he or she complains before the Court (see, among other authorities, Scordino v\u00a0 Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813\/97, \u00a7\u00a7 178-213, ECHR 2006\u2011V, and Cocchiarella v.\u00a0Italy [GC], no. 64886\/01, \u00a7\u00a7 72-98, ECHR 2006\u2011V) and on whether the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention. Only when those two conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application by the Court (see Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 32, \u00a7\u00a7 69 et seq., and Jensen v.\u00a0Denmark (dec.), no. 48470\/99, ECHR 2001-X).<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0Bearing in mind the fact that the domestic courts on three occasions acknowledged that there had been a violation of the right to trial within the reasonable time, the Court considers that the first condition laid down in its case-law, namely acknowledgment by the authorities of the infringement of a right protected by the Convention, has been satisfied.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the second condition, namely appropriate redress from the authorities for the wrong suffered, the Court must determine whether the sum awarded can be considered sufficient to make good the alleged damage and breach (seeScordino, cited above). The Court notes that the compensation granted in the present case is lower compared with the sums awarded for comparable delays in the Court\u2019s case-law. In such circumstances, the Court can accept the amount awarded to the applicants in so far as it is not manifestly unreasonable which falls to be assessed in the light of all the circumstances of the case. These include not merely the duration of the proceedings in the specific case but the value of the award judged in the light of the standard of living in the State concerned, and the fact that under the national system compensation will in general be awarded and paid more promptly than would be the case if the matter fell to be decided by the Court under Article 41 of the Convention (see\u00a0Dru\u0161tvo\u00a0za\u00a0varstvo upnikov v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 66433\/13, 21\u00a0November 2017, \u00a7\u00a061, and Kalazic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 15382\/04, 28\u00a0September 2006).<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of the material in the file and having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considers that in aggregate the sum awarded to the applicant can be considered sufficient and therefore appropriate redress for the violation suffered (seeCataldo v. Italy\u00a0(dec.), no.\u00a045656\/99, 3 June 2004).<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0The Court therefore concludes that, in respect to the complaint about the unreasonable length of the first set of proceedings, the applicant can no longer claim to be a \u201cvictim\u201d, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of the alleged violation of his right to a trial within a reasonable time.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, this complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Article 13 of the Convention<\/em><\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that the remedy under the 2004 Act had been ineffective in his case. He invoked Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cEveryone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.\u201d<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that Article 13 requires the State to provide an effective legal remedy to deal with the substance of an \u201carguable complaint\u201d under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see S\u00fcrmeli v.\u00a0Germany [GC], no. 75529\/01, \u00a7 98, 8 June 2006). Considering that the complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings is incompatible ratione personae, the Court finds that the applicant did not have an arguable claim for the purposes of Article 13, which is therefore not applicable to his case.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione\u00a0materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a04 (see,\u00a0Dru\u0161tvo za varstvo upnikov, cited above, \u00a7 68).<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Second set of proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0By letter dated 20 September 2017 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to partly resolving the issues raised by the application. The Government acknowledged a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 on account of the excessive length of the second set of criminal proceedings against the applicant and violation of Article 13\u00a0on account of the lack of an effective remedy, securing sufficient redress for a violation of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1. They offered payment to the applicant of PLN 12,\u00a0530. The Government further undertook to adopt a range of general measures in respect of other persons who were victims of similar violations or might be affected by similar violations in the future. The sum referred to above 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\u00a01 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum 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. In addition, the Government made a declaration on general measures to be adopted in implementation of the Rutkowski and Others pilot judgment (see Za\u0142uska and Rogalska v. Poland and 398 other applications (dec.), nos. 53491\/10 and 72286\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 23\u201125, 20\u00a0June 2017). They further requested the Court to strike out this part of the application in accordance with Article\u00a037 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 February 2018 the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0The 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 21.\u00a0\u00a0It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 \u00a7 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0To this end, the Court has examined the declarationsin 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.\u00a028953\/03, 18\u00a0September\u00a02007).<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The conclusions reached by the Court on admissions and undertakings contained in the Government\u2019s declarations in the first group of 400 cases submitted in the pilot-judgment procedure apply to the present case (see Za\u0142uska and Rogalska (dec), cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 51-53).<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government\u2019s declarations, as well as the amount of compensation proposed \u2013 which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases \u2011\u00a0the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 \u00a7 1 (c)).<\/p>\n 25.\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 application (Article 37 \u00a7 1 in fine).<\/p>\n 26.\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 37 \u00a7 2 of the Convention (Josipovi\u0107 v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369\/07, 4 March 2008).<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases 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 Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention in respect to the second set of proceedings and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;<\/p>\n Decides to strike that part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article\u00a037\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 29 November 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 Ksenija Turkovi\u0107
\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