FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 21307/07
by Andrzej PIONTEK
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 December 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša Vučinić,
Vincent A. de Gaetano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 May 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Andrzej Piontek, a Polish national who was born in 1939 and lives in Wodzisław Śląski. He was represented before the Court by Mr L. Wroński, a lawyer practising in Wodzislaw Slaski. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant is the Secretary of an association called “Friends of Pszów”, Pszów being a town in the vicinity of Wodzisław Śląski. In 2005 the Association moved to its new headquarters. Shortly afterwards, a local newspaper, Pszowik, published an article in which a statement by a local councillor I.B. concerning the renovation of the Association’s premises was quoted.
In reply the applicant wrote a letter to another local newspaper, Nowiny Wodzisławski”. Certain parts of his letter were subsequently published. The applicant disagreed with the position taken by I.B. in his article.
On 12 August 2005 the Wodzisław Śląski District Prosecutor indicted the applicant. He was charged with commission of an offence of proffering insults against a public official, punishable under Article 226 § 1 of the Criminal Code.
On 6 June 2006 the Gliwice District Court found the applicant guilty of the offence and imposed a fine on him in the amount of PLN 800.
The applicant appealed.
On 17 November 2006 the Gliwice Regional Court amended the judgment in that it held that the applicant had committed an offence of insult punishable by Article 216 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The fine was maintained. The applicant was ordered to pay the court fees for the first‑instance proceedings in the amount of PLN 80 and for the appellate proceedings in the amount of PLN 230.
THE LAW
The applicant alleged that the proceedings brought against him under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code had infringed his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
““1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.” ”
By letter dated 30 September 2010 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.
The declaration provided as follows:
“[T]he Government hereby wish to express – by way of unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the fact that the applicant’s right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention was restricted and the applicant can claim to be a victim of violation of his right to freedom of expression within the meaning of [this provision].
Consequently, Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicant the sum of PLN 18,000 which they consider to be reasonable in the light of 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. 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.
The Government would respectfully suggest 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. ”
In a letter of 20 October 2010 the applicant accepted the Government’s proposal.
The Court observes 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) in particular enables the Court 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”.
Having regard to the applicant’s clear acceptance of the terms of the declaration and his willingness to have his application struck out of the list, the Court considers that “it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application” within the meaning of
Article 37 § 1(c) of the Convention.
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic(see, among other authorities, Długołęcki v. Poland, cited above, §§ 44-47, 24 February 2009; Sokołowski v. Poland, no. 75955/01, §§ 46-51, 29 March 2005; Kwiecień v. Poland, no. 51744/99, §§ 52-56, ECHR 2007‑....; Kubaszewski v. Poland, no. 571/04, §§ 47-49, 2 February 2010; and Kurłowicz v. Poland, no. 41029/06, §§ 50-55, 22 June 2010), 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).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Fatoş AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy