FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 55354/12
Sebastian MECH
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 February 2014 as a Committee composed of:
George Nicolaou, President,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Faris Vehabović, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 July 2012,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Sebastian Mech, is a Polish national, who was born in 1980 and is currently detained in Krasnystaw Remand Centre. He was represented before the Court by Mr P. Rał, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.
The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant primarily complained under Article 3 of the Convention that during his detention in Włodawa and Chełm Prisons and Lublin and Krasnystaw Remand Centres he had been placed in overcrowded cells.
THE LAW
On 31 October 2013 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant's representative:
“I, Piotr Rał, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay to Sebastian Mech, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, PLN 30,000 (thirty thousand Polish zlotys), to cover any and all pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
I further note that the payment constitutes redress for the systemic violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention, in particular overcrowding, as identified by the Court in the pilot judgment given in the case of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) on 22 October 2009 (see paragraphs 135 and 147 et seq.).
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. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Having consulted my client, I would inform you that he accepts the proposal and waives any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. He declares that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
On 2 December 2013 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Justyna Chrzanowska, Agent of the Government, declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay to Sebastian Mech, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights PLN 30,000 (thirty thousand Polish zlotys) to cover any and all pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
The payment is intended to provide the applicant with redress for the systemic violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of his detention, in particular overcrowding, as identified by the Court in the pilot judgment given in the case of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) on 22 October 2009 (see paragraphs 135 and 147 et seq.).
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. 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 period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
The Court 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. 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 in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.
Fatoş AracıGeorge Nicolaou
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy