FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 1629/11
Zbigniew Józef LORBIECKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 June 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Nona Tsotsoria, President,
Paul Mahoney,
Faris Vehabović, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 December 2010,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 17 April 2015 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:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Zbigniew Józef Lorbiecki, is a Polish national, who was born in 1973 and lives in Kościerzyna. He was represented before the Court by Ms Sykulska-Przybysz, a lawyer practising in Tczew.
The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The application had been communicated to the Government.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 1 June 2006 the applicant was charged with uttering threats.
On 30 August 2006 the Kościerzyna District Court discontinued the proceedings against the applicant. The court found it established that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. However, he could not be held criminally responsible as he had been suffering from a mental disorder.
On 23 October 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court upheld this decision. The applicant was detained in a psychiatric hospital on 17 April 2007. His detention was subsequently reviewed on a number of occasions.
In particular, on 10 March and 21 September 2009 the Kościerzyna District Court, referring to an experts’ opinion, confirmed that the applicant’s condition had not changed and it was necessary to keep him in the hospital.
The matters relating to the applicant’s detention during this period had been subject of his first application to the Court (see Lorbiecki v Poland (dec), 9 March 2010, no. 50178/08).
On 30 March 2010 the Kościerzyna District Court again confirmed that the applicant’s condition had not changed and it was necessary to keep him in the hospital. The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against the latter decision.
On 12 July 2010 the Gdańsk Regional Court held a hearing at which it dismissed his appeal against the decision of 30 March 2010. Despite his request, the applicant was not brought for the hearing. The court considered that the applicant’s lawyer’s presence was enough. On the same date the court gave a decision and refused to release the applicant from the hospital. The court considered that in view of the experts’ opinion of 12 February 2010, the applicant’s condition had partially improved. However, it was still necessary to continue his internment.
On 28 September 2010 the Kościerzyna District Court lifted the preventive measure. The court based on a most recent psychiatric opinion in which the experts concluded that the applicant’s state of health improved and that the probability of him committing similar offence again had diminished.
On 5 October 2010 the applicant was released from detention.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains invoking several provisions of the Convention that his motions for release from the hospital were unsuccessful and examined with a delay.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about length of the proceedings by which he sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in the psychiatric hospital. The complaint falls to be examined under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, the Government informed the Court by letter of 17 April 2015 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 Government hereby wish to express – by way of unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement that the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in a psychiatric hospital, did not comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. Simultaneously the Government declare that they are ready to pay to the applicant the sum of PLN 15,000, which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case law (...).
The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, will be free from 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 European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from the 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.
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’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.”
In a letter of 19 May 2015 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low and that the Court should examine the case on the merits.
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”.
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.
To this end, the Court has examined the declaration carefully 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, 18 September 2007).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the length of the proceedings by which a person seeks to challenge the lawfulness of his detention (see, for example, Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, ECHR 2000‑III; Lewicki v. Poland, no. 28993/05, 6 October 2009; Pyrak v.Poland, no. 54476/00, 12 February 2008; Lorbiecki (dec), cited above).
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).
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).
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 5 § 4 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 23 July 2015.
Fatoş AracıNona Tsotsoria
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy