FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 5586/05
Maria ROGUSKA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 March 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Nona Tsotsoria, President,
Paul Mahoney,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 January 2005,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 31 December 2013 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, Ms Maria Roguska, is a Polish national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Strzyżów.
The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz, succeeded by Ms J. Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained under Articles 6, 8 and 14 of the Convention and, in substance, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the reopening of the social security proceedings which had resulted in the revocation of her right to the EWK pension.
The application was communicated to the Government.
After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, by letter dated 31 December 2013 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 hereby wish to express – by way of the unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention stemming from the sudden revocation of the applicant’s EWK pension which placed an excessive burden on the applicant incompatible with that provision.
Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 5,500 (five thousand five hundred euros) 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 (...)”
On 23 January 2014, the Court received a letter from the applicant informing the Court that she had agreed to the terms of the Government’s declaration.
THE LAW
The Court finds that following the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties.
It therefore 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 pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention.
Fatoş AracıNona Tsotsoria
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy