FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14470/04
by Piotr JAMROŻY
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9 December 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 April 2004,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Piotr Jamroży, is a Polish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Olsztyn. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. The applicant's detention and his acquittal
On 29 October 1998 the Olsztyn District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) detained the applicant on suspicion that he had committed several counts of burglary.
On 15 January 1999 the District Court extended the applicant's detention.
On 18 March 1999 the applicant was released from detention and police supervision (dozór policji) was imposed on him.
On 28 August 2002 the Olsztyn District Court acquitted the applicant.
On 4 February 2003 the District Court's judgment became final.
2. Proceedings concerning the applicant's claim for compensation for wrongful detention
On 11 February 2003 the applicant lodged a claim with the Olsztyn Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) for compensation for wrongful detention. He sought 10,000 zlotys (PLN) in compensation for loss of earnings caused by almost five months of wrongful detention, calculated on the basis of an average salary of about PLN 2,000 for each month.
On 6 October 2003 the Olsztyn Regional Court granted the applicant compensation in the amount of PLN 4,000 and dismissed the remainder of his claim. The court found that the applicant had suffered no damage because he had not worked prior to his detention, and granted compensation only in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Assessing the amount of non‑pecuniary damage, the court found that the applicant had been detained in “standard conditions” and that, due to his previous criminal record, he had not lost his “good name” as a result of the wrongful detention.
On an unspecified date the applicant's lawyer lodged an appeal against the first-instance judgment.
On 15 January 2004 the Białystok Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the applicant's appeal.
On 28 January 2004 the Białystok Court of Appeal informed the applicant that, if he wished to lodge a cassation appeal, it had to be drafted and signed by a lawyer and that, if his financial situation was difficult, he could request the court to appoint a legal-aid lawyer to lodge a cassation appeal on his behalf.
On an unspecified date, between 28 January and 13 February 2004, the applicant requested the Białystok Court of Appeal to appoint a legal-aid lawyer for him.
On 13 February 2004 the President of the Criminal Department (Przewodnicząca Wydziału Karnego) of the Białystok Court of Appeal refused the applicant's request. She found that the compensation granted to the applicant “was sufficient to pay the lawyer's fee for drafting a cassation appeal”. This decision contained a two-line reasoning.
On 15 June 2004 the applicant received a letter from the Olsztyn Regional Court informing him that, on 28 May 2004, the compensation payment had been sent by postal order to his address.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that the amount he had been awarded was insufficient.
2. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the court had refused his application for a legal-aid lawyer to be appointed with a view to lodging a cassation appeal, even though he had not had sufficient means to hire a lawyer.
THE LAW
On 13 October 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Piotr Jamroży, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN 10,000 (ten thousand Polish zlotys) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, 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 and 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. 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.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
On 28 October the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Jakub Wołąsiewicz, Agent of the Polish Government, declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 10,000 (ten thousand Polish zlotys) to Mr Piotr Jamroży with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, 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 and 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 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 (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). 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.
Lawrence EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy