FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 78037/14
Dawid CZEREPSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 October 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
Egidijus Kūris,
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges,
and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 January 2015,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 13 June 2016 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Dawid Czerepski, is a Polish national, who was born in 1985 and lives in Lubicz Dolny.
2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Justyna Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about overcrowding and inadequate living conditions during his detention in Bydgoszcz Remand Centre.
4. The application had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
5. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 13 June 2016 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.
6. The declaration provides as follows:
“The Government hereby wish to express – by way of the unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the violation of Article 3 of the Convention due to inadequate conditions of the applicant’s detention, in particular overcrowding, in Bydgoszcz Remand Centre within the period of 47 days. Simultaneously, they declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of PLN 3,500 which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the individual circumstances of the present case, as well as the Court’s case-law in similar cases (e.g. Ołowski v. Poland, application no. 66417/10, decision of 09.08.2014). The sum referred to above, which is to cover any and all 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 § 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 period plus three percentage points.”
7. The applicant did not submit his comments within the given time-limit.
8. 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 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”.
9. It also reiterates 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 or does not comment upon the said declaration.
10. To 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. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; see also WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
11. 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)).
12. Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic (see, inter alia, Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, 22 October 2009; Norbert Sikorski v. Poland, no. 17599/05, 22 October 2009; and Łatak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010), 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).
13. 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 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 3 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 3 November 2016.
Andrea TamiettiVincent A. De Gaetano
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy