FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 38845/12
Roman RATUSZNY
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 September 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Ledi Bianku, President,
Paul Mahoney,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 June 2012,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 9 April 2014 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
The applicant, Mr Roman Ratuszny, is a Polish national, who was born in 1967 and is currently detained in Wołów prison. He was represented before the Court by Mr P. Głuchowski, a lawyer practising in Poznań.
The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs J. Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention, mainly overcrowding, in Bielsko-Biała Remand Centre, Wojkowice Prison and Poznań Remand Centre.
The application had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in Bielsko-Biała Remand Centre, Wojkowice Prison and Poznań Remand Centre. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention.
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 8 April 2014 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:
“(...) the Government declare that they offer to pay the applicant the amount of PLN 22,500 (twenty two thousand five hundred Polish zlotys), which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case-law. The sum referred to above is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses of proceedings before the Court 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 Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) on 22 October 2009 (see paragraphs 135 and 147 et seq.). ”
By a letter of 10 July 2014, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the proposed amount had not been proportionate to the damage suffered.
The Court recalls 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”.
It also recalls 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.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
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)).
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).
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).
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 Government’s declaration under Article 3 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.
Fatoş AracıLedi Bianku
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy