FIRST SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 46605\/13
\nPawe\u0142 Wies\u0142aw \u0141UCZAJ
\nagainst Poland<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12\u00a0February 2019 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Ksenija Turkovi\u0107, President,
\nKrzysztof Wojtyczek,
\nPauliine Koskelo, judges,<\/p>\n
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 July 2013,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 17 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<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Mr Pawe\u0142 Wies\u0142aw \u0141uczaj, is Polish national, who was born in 1978 and is detained in Warsaw \u2013 Bia\u0142o\u0142\u0119ka Detention Centre. He was represented before the Court by Mr J. Brydak, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The 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 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention about lack of access to the case file during the investigative stage of the proceedings.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The application had been communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 17 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 37 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The declaration provided as follows<\/p>\n \u201cThe Government hereby wish to express \u2013 by way of the unilateral declaration \u2013 their acknowledgement of the fact that the principle of equality of arms, as guaranteed by Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention, was not respected in the proceedings relating to the imposition and prolongation of the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention, as it relates to lack of access of the applicant\u2019s lawyer to the investigation files in the initial phase of the proceedings (…).<\/p>\n Simultaneously, the Government declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of PLN 5,000 (five thousand Polish zlotys) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. The Government consider the above sum to be reasonable in the light of the Court\u2019s case-law (…). It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the final ruling taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. 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.<\/p>\n The Government respectfully suggest that the above declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court\u2019s lists of cases, as referred to in Article 37 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention.\u201d<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0By a letter of 24 October 2018 the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration, since the amount proposed had only partially covered the costs of representation.<\/p>\n 8.\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 9.\u00a0\u00a0It 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 10.\u00a0\u00a0To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in 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\u00a0June\u00a02007; and Sulwi\u0144ska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953\/03, 18\u00a0September\u00a02007).<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4 (see, for example (M\u0142odzieniak v. Poland (dec.), case no. 28592\/03, 21 September 2010), Jankowski v. Poland (dec.), no.\u00a025049\/12, 05 December 2013).<\/p>\n 12.\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 application (Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c)).<\/p>\n 13.\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 14.\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 15.\u00a0\u00a0In 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 5 \u00a7 4 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 14 March 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 Ksenija Turkovi\u0107
\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