FIRST SECTION
\nDECISION
\nApplication no. 28078\/10
\nEwa Danuta GAWRYCH and others
\nagainst Poland<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 20\u00a0February 2018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Ale\u0161 Pejchal, President,
\nKrzysztof Wojtyczek,
\nArmen Harutyunyan, judges,
\nand Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 May 2010,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 4 October 2016 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants\u2019 reply to that declaration,<\/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, 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 proceedings in their case and under Article\u00a013\u00a0of the Convention about the lack of, or insufficient, redress for the excessive length of proceedings granted to them by the national courts.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The part of the application concerning Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention had been communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0By letter of 10 July 2011 the first, second and fourth applicants informed the Court of the third applicant\u2019s death and of the identity of the third applicant\u2019s heir, MrRafa\u0142Patynek. He expressed a wish to continue the application in the third applicant\u2019s stead. The Government did not object to the wish of the third applicant\u2019s heir.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Standing of the third applicant\u2019s son<\/strong><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the third applicant died after the introduction of the application and that her son, MrRafa\u0142Patynek has informed the Court that he wishes to pursue the application introduced by his mother.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The respondent Government did not object to the third applicant\u2019s son\u2019s wish to pursue the application.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The Court recalls that it has accepted on a number of occasions that close relatives of a deceased applicant may be entitled to take his or her place (see, inter alia, Goc v. Poland (dec.), no. 48001\/99, 23 October 2001). In the present case, the Court accepts that the third applicant\u2019s son can pursue the application in the third applicant\u2019s stead.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 1<\/strong><\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained under Article 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention that the length of the civil proceedings had been excessive.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 4 October 2016 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 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 \u201c… the Government hereby wish to express \u2013 by way of the unilateral declaration \u2013 their acknowledgement of the excessive length of proceedings which is still pending.<\/p>\n Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay the sum of PLN 35,000 for each of the applicants which they consider to be reasonable in the circumstances of the present case and case law of the Court in similar cases. 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\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 list of cases, as referred to in Article\u00a037 \u00a7\u00a01 (c) of the Convention …\u201d<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0By a letter of 2 November 2016, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the amount proposed by the Government was too low.<\/p>\n 12.\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 its part, 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 13.\u00a0\u00a0It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application, or its part, 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 case to be continued.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the TahsinAcar judgment (TahsinAcar 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\u00a02007; and Sulwi\u0144ska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953\/03, 18\u00a0September\u00a02007).<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0The 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, Cocchiarella v.\u00a0Italy [GC], no.\u00a064886\/01, \u00a7\u00a7 69-98, ECHR 2006\u2011V; Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813\/97, \u00a7 227, ECHR 2006\u2011V, 15 July 2004, and Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, nos. 72287\/10, 13927\/11 and 46187\/11, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0126-128, 7 July 2015).<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government\u2019s declaration, the circumstances of the present case 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 17.\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 this part of the application (Article 37 \u00a7 1 in fine).<\/p>\n 18.\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 19.\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 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Complaint under Article 13<\/strong><\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they had had no \u201ceffective remedy\u201d against the excessive length of proceedings.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 \u00a7 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time. However, the \u201ceffectiveness\u201d of a \u201cremedy\u201d within the meaning of that provision does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see\u00a0Kud\u0142a v. Poland[GC], no. 30210\/96, \u00a7\u00a7 154 et seq., ECHR 2000-XI).<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0 While the subsidiarity principle underlying the Convention system requires the Contracting States to introduce a mechanism addressing complaints about the excessive length of proceedings within the national legal system, they are afforded \u2013 subject to compliance with the requirements of the Convention \u2013 some discretion as to the manner in which they provide individuals with the relief required by Article 13 and thus conform to their Convention obligations under that provision.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further reiterates that the word \u201cremedy\u201d within the meaning of Article 13 does not mean a remedy which is bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see, for example,\u0160idlov\u00e1 v. Slovakia, no.\u00a050224\/99, \u00a7 77, 26 September 2006,and Figiel v.\u00a0Poland (no. 2), no.\u00a038206\/05, \u00a7 33, 16\u00a0September 2008).<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the Government\u2019s admissions in respect of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and the fact that the applicant had, and made use of, a length complaint under the 2004 Act, the Court concludes that this part of the application is manifestly ill\u2011founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Decides that the third applicant\u2019s heir has standing to continue the proceedings in the third applicant\u2019s stead;<\/p>\n Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government\u2019s declaration 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 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 15 March 2018.<\/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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ale\u0161Pejchal ______________<\/p>\n Appendix<\/p>\n 1. Ewa Danuta GAWRYCH – born in 1952, is a Polish national and lives in Komor\u00f3w – NowaWie\u015b.<\/p>\n 2. Jolanta SALI\u0143SKA – born in 1951, is a Polish national and lives in Komor\u00f3w.<\/p>\n 3. Hanna PATYNEK – born in 1946 and died in 2011, was a Polish national and lived in Komor\u00f3w. MrRafa\u0142Patynek wishes to continue the application in the third applicant\u2019s stead.<\/p>\n 4. Urszula SALI\u0143SKA-PECORELLI – born on 29\/09\/1955 is a Polish national and lives in Komor\u00f3w.<\/p>\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n