FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 38631/18
Kamil MARUT
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26 May 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, President,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Armen Harutyunyan, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 August 2018,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 20 December 2019 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 Kamil Marut, is a Polish national, who was born in 1988 and lives in Rzeszow. He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Gąsiorowska, a lawyer practising in Warszawa.
2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Sobczak of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention about a breach of his right to respect for his family life.
4. The application had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
5. The applicant complained about non-enforcement of the domestic decisions regarding contact arrangements between him and his daughter. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention.
6. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 20 December 2019 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.
7. The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government thereby wish to express – by way of the unilateral declaration ‑ their acknowledgment of the violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. Simultaneously, they declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of the PLN 32,000 (thirty two thousand Polish zlotys) 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 ...
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. This sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases 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, as a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default periods plus three percentage points.”
8. By a letter of 27 January 2020, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration.
9. 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”.
10. 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.
11. 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).
12. 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 respect for his family life in connection with non-enforcement of contact arrangements (see for example, Zawadka v. Poland, no. 48542/99, § 68, 23 June 2005; Pawlik v. Poland, no. 11638/02, § 55, 19 June 2007; Malec v. Poland, no. 28623/12, § 78, 28 June 2016; and, among other authorities, Ignaccolo‑Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 96, ECHR 2000‑I).
13. 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)).
14. 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).
15. 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).
16. 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 8 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 18 June 2020.
Renata DegenerLinos-Alexandre Sicilianos
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy