FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 48803/12
Wojciech MAJEWICZ
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9 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 13 July 2012,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 17 April 2014 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
1. The applicant, Mr Wojciech Majewicz, is a Polish national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Poznań. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Reichelt and Mr M. Zelek, lawyers practising in Poznań.
2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. The applicant was suspected of extortion. On 9 June 2009 he was arrested by a team of sixteen police officers, including a number of them from the special anti‑terrorist unit.
4. The applicant resisted the arrest but the police eventually overcame his resistance. He was taken to the Poznań Police Station and later to a hospital for a medical check of his injuries sustained on arrest.
5. On 10 June 2009 the applicant was questioned by the Poznań–Wilda District Prosecutor and charged with extortion. On the same day the applicant filed a criminal complaint against the police officers. He alleged that he had been severely assaulted by the police officers after he had been immobilised. The applicant requested the prosecutor to order an expert opinion regarding his injuries.
6. On 13 July 2009 the Poznań–Grunwald District Prosecutor opened an investigation into the abuse of authority by the police officers. On 17 July 2009 the prosecutor ordered a forensic report to be prepared with regard to the applicant’s injuries and their origin.
7. On 31 December 2009 the Poznań–Grunwald District Prosecutor discontinued the investigation into the abuse of power by the police officers. She had regard, inter alia, to the witness evidence and the report of a forensic expert. The prosecutor found that the nature of the injuries sustained by the applicant did not indicate that the force used by the police had been disproportionate. She concluded that the police officers acted in compliance with the law. The applicant had not obeyed the orders of the police officers and had been aggressive and thus had prompted the use of force by the police.
8. On 21 January 2010 the applicant filed an appeal against the prosecutor’s decision. On an unspecified date the Poznań–Nowe Miasto and Wilda District Court quashed the prosecutor’s decision and remitted the case.
9. On 13 June 2011 the Poznań–Grunwald District Prosecutor again discontinued the investigation into the alleged abuse of power by the police officers. The applicant appealed. On 23 February 2012 the Poznań–Nowe Miasto and Wilda District Court upheld the prosecutor’s decision. The court agreed that the use of force by the police had been justified by the applicant’s aggressive behaviour.
10. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill‑treated by the police officers of the Poznań Police during his arrest and subsequent detention.
11. He also complained that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation concerning the allegations of his ill‑treatment. In particular, he asserted that the authorities had not examined the allegation that he had ben ill‑treated during his detention at the police station. He further complained that the prosecutor had belatedly ordered a forensic expert report.
12. The application was communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
13. After unsuccessful friendly‑settlement negotiations, by letter dated 17 April 2014 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
14. The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government hereby wish to express – by way of the unilateral declaration – their acknowledgment of the violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of failure to conduct an effective investigation in the present case. Simultaneously, the Government declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 5,000 which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case law (see, inter alia, Prądzyński v. Poland, application no. 49284/10, [Committee] decision of 25 March 2014; Majkowski v. Poland, application no. 32272/11, [Committee] decision of 20 November 2012; Karbowniczek v. Poland, application no. 22339/08, judgment of 27 September 2011; Polanowski v. Poland, application no. 16381/05, judgment of 27 April 2010). The sum referred to above, which is to cover any 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 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 periods plus three percentage points.
With respect to the first question of the Court – whether the applicant was subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, the Government indicate that they are unable to assess whether there was a violation of this provision in its substantive limb due to the inadequacy of the investigation in the case in question. For this reason, they refrain from submitting any observations in this part. At the same time, they respectfully ask the Court to examine the present case only in the light of its procedural limb (see Prądzyński v. Poland, cited above; Majkowski v Poland, cited above; Polanowski v. Poland, cited above, § 59, Karbowniczek v. Poland, cited above, § 58).
The Government respectfully suggests 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.”
15. On 27 May 2014, the Court received a letter from the applicant informing the Court that he had agreed to the terms of the Government’s declaration.
16. The Court finds that following the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties.
17. It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application.
18. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 2 July 2015.
Fatoş AracıNona Tsotsoria
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy