LIWSKI v. POLAND

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 25092/17
Jacek LIWSKI
against Poland

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 27 June 2024 as a Committee composed of:

 Péter Paczolay, President,
 Gilberto Felici,
 Raffaele Sabato, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 March 2017,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.

The applicant was represented by Ms M. Gąsiorowska, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.

The applicant’s complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention concerning his contact rights with his child and the length of the related court proceedings were communicated to the Polish Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention regarding the length of the proceedings concerning the applicant’s contact rights. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The Government acknowledged the violation of Article 6 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook 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 payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

The applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the grounds that the amount proposed was too low.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it 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”.

Thus, 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 (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the excessive length of civil proceedings (see, for example, Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, 7 July 2015).

Noting 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 in the part covered by the Government’s unilateral declaration (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

In the light of the above considerations, 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 in that part (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 may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see 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 as regards the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the length of the proceedings related to the applicant’s contact rights with his child.

The applicant also raised a related complaint under Article 8 of the Convention.

The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in so far as they concern the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention, and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 18 July 2024.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Péter Paczolay
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 of the Convention

(child care, civil proceedings, length)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant