FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 16573/10
Jolanta KUŚ and Leon KUS
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 21 May 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Armen Harutyunyan, President,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Pere Pastor Vilanova, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 March 2010,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 6 February 2019 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicants, Ms Jolanta Kuś and Mr Leon Kuś, are Polish nationals, who were born in 1963 and 1962 respectively and live in Lubliniec. They were represented before the Court by Ms J. Banaszewska, a lawyer practising in Wrocław.
2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska and subsequently by Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of civil proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective remedy for the excessive length of proceedings.
4. The application had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
5. By a letter dated 6 February 2019 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. The Government acknowledged a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of proceedings and violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy, securing sufficient redress for a violation of Article 6 § 1. They undertook to pay the two applicants jointly 20,500 Polish zlotys (PLN) (twenty thousand five hundred) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which 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 these sums 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. They further requested the Court to strike out the application.
6. By a letter of 22 mars 2019 the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration.
7. 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”.
8. 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 applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued.
9. 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; 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).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006‑V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007; and Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, § 160, 7 July 2015).
10. 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)).
11. 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).
12. 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 Articles 6 § 1 and 13 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 13 June 2019.
Renata DegenerArmen Harutyunyan
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy