FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 60531/19
Helena MRÓZ
against Poland
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4 May 2023 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Gilberto Felici,
Raffaele Sabato, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 November 2019,
Having regard to the letters of the applicant’s heir dated 16 July and 15 August 2021,
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 deceased in the course of the proceedings. Her daughter, Ms D. Kalinowska, a lawyer practising in Bydgoszcz, who had represented the applicant, expressed her wish to proceed with the application.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings, limitation of access to court and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law 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 these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. They offered to pay the applicant’s heir 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’s heir was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicant’s heir accepting the terms of the declaration.
The Court firstly notes that there was no objection from the Government, and the Court also accepts, that the applicant’s daughter and heir has standing to continue the proceedings in her late mother’s stead.
The Court further 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 applications 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 unilateral declaration of the Government (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 complaints concerning the excessive length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that respect.
The applicant also raised other complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, having argued that the excessive length of the proceedings had made her right of access to court illusory.
The Court has examined this complaint 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 is manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention (see Bieliński v. Poland, no. 48762/19, §§ 71-72, 21 July 2022).
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 it concerns the excessive length of the proceedings and lack of an effective domestic remedy, and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Finds that the applicant’s daughter and heir has standing to pursue the application in her late mother’s stead and decides to strike the part of the application, covered by the Government’s unilateral declaration (see above), 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 25 May 2023.
Viktoriya Maradudina Alena Poláčková
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Date of receipt of the Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of applicant’s comments
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
(in euros)[1]
60531/19
14/11/2019
Helena MRÓZ
1933
deceased in 2021
Heir:
The applicant’s daughter
Dorota Kalinowska
Kalinowska Dorota
Bydgoszcz
27/01/2023
25/02/2023
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable.