FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33309/02
by Stanisław BIEGLECKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 31 August 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Giovanni Bonello, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ján Šikuta, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 July 2002,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 9 April 2010 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant's reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Stanislaw Bieglecki, is a Polish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Włocławek. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 19 December 2000 the Płock Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to 12 years' imprisonment. On 12 September 2001 the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment.
On a later unknown date the court assigned a legal-aid lawyer to file a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. In a letter to the applicant dated 19 November 2001 the lawyer informed that he had found no grounds on which to prepare a cassation appeal. The lawyer informed the court about his decision on 10 December 2001.
In the meantime, the applicant prepared a personal cassation appeal. On 12 December 2001 the court summoned him to submit a cassation appeal signed by a lawyer within a seven-day time-limit. The applicant requested the court to assign a new legal-aid lawyer to the case. On 25 January 2002 the Warsaw Court of Appeal refused the applicant's request. On 11 February 2002 the court refused to examine the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant himself.
In a letter to the court dated 14 March 2002 a new legal-aid lawyer assigned for the purpose of interlocutory proceedings refused to lodge an interlocutory appeal against the decision of 11 February 2002. On 19 March 2002 the court informed the applicant about the lawyer's decision without informing him of his further procedural rights.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that the proceedings in his case had been unfair in that he had been denied an effective access to the Supreme Court.
The applicant complained about the outcome and unfairness of the proceedings, in particular that the courts dealing with his case had wrongly established the facts and evaluated the evidence.
THE LAW
The applicant complained that he had been denied an effective access to a court since the legal-aid lawyer had refused to prepare a cassation appeal for examination by the Supreme Court. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
“In the determination of the criminal charges against him ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...”
By letters dated 9 April and 31 May 2010 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.
The declaration provided as follows:
“(...) the Government hereby wish to express - by way of unilateral declaration — its acknowledgement of the fact that the applicant was denied access to a court in the determination of criminal charges against him, in breach of Article 6 § 1 read together with Article 6 § 3 (c ) of the Convention, regard being had to the court's failure to instruct him after the legal-aid lawyers' refusal to prepare a cassation appeal about the renewed time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. (...) the Government wish to offer the applicant the sum of PLN 7,700 (...) in respect of the applicant's pecuniary damage. (...)
The sum referred to above will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months of the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 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 period plus three percentage points”.
In a letter of 10 May 2010 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government's declaration was unacceptably low.
The Court recalls 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 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(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.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
The Court has established in a number of cases its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right of access to the Supreme Court in criminal proceeding (see Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009; Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009‑... (extracts)).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government's declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
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 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
The applicant further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings in his case had been unfair.
The Court considers that the material in its possession does not disclose any appearance of a violation of this provision of the Convention.
Accordingly, this part of the application is manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government's declaration in respect of the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning denial of access to the cassation proceedings and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides unanimously to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares unanimously the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Fatoş AracıGiovanni Bonello
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy