FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42192/11
Adrian RÓŻNICKI against Poland
and 28 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12 December 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Aleš Pejchal, President,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Armen Harutyunyan, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 7 December 2015, 6 July and 3 November 2016, and on 13 July 2017 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. All the applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of proceedings in their cases and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of, or insufficient, redress for the excessive length of proceedings granted to them by the national courts.
4. On 7 July 2015 the applications were communicated to the Polish Government pursuant to Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, by virtue of the ninth operative provision of the pilot-judgment given in the case of Rutkowski and Others v. Poland (see Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, §§ 223-228 and the ninth operative provision, 7 July 2015).
5. By letters dated 7 December 2015, 6 July and 3 November 2016, and 13 July 2017 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. In each case the Government acknowledged a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of proceedings and violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy, securing sufficient redress for a violation of Article 6 § 1. They offered payment of sums specified in respect of each applicant in a table appended to their declarations. The Government further undertook to adopt a range of general measures in respect of other persons who were victims of similar violations or might be affected by similar violations in the future. The sums referred to above, which are specified in the appendix to the decision, are to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. They 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 Convention. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on each of them, 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. In addition, the Government made a declaration on general measures to be adopted in implementation of the Rutkowski and Others pilot judgment (see Załuska and Rogalska v. Poland and 398 other applications (dec.), nos. 53491/10 and 72286/10, §§ 23-25, 20 June 2017). They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
THE LAW
6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
7. On various dates in 2017 all applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations.
8. The Court reiterates 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”.
9. It also reiterates 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 applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued.
10. To this end, the Court has examined the declarations in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
11. The conclusions reached by the Court on admissions and undertakings contained in the Government’s declarations in the first group of 400 cases submitted in the pilot-judgment procedure apply to the present case (see Załuska and Rogalska (dec), cited above, §§ 51-53).
12. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, 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 applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
13. 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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
14. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications 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).
15. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 11 January 2018.
Renata DegenerAleš Pejchal
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
Introduced by
Amount proposed in Unilateral Declaration
42192/11
01/07/2011
Adrian RÓŻNICKI
13/06/1982
Łódź
Adrian Różnicki
PLN 3,710
4053/11
09/12/2010
Mariusz MIŚ
23/07/1969
Opole
Aleksandra CEMPURA
Mariusz Miś
PLN 32,400
63202/11
30/09/2011
Grażyna NIEMIAŁTOWSKA
14/08/1943
Warsaw
Marek NIEMIAŁTOWSKI
29/03/1945
Dominika NIEMIAŁTOWSKA continues in her father’s stead.
Grażyna Niemiałtowska
Marek Niemiałtowski
Dominika Niemiałtowska
PLN 7,720 for all applicants
20030/12
26/03/2012
Arkadiusz JASTRZĘBSKI
20/06/1975
Lublin
Arkadiusz Jastrzębski
PLN 21,840
20319/12
16/03/2012
Przemysław Rafał BORECKI
17/12/1977
Warsaw
Przemysław Rafał Borecki
PLN 11,100
24100/12
06/04/2012
Stefan MAJEWSKI
30/04/1944
Warsaw
Stefan Majewski
PLN 40,800
60164/12
03/09/2012
Dariusz KRZYSIAK
19/10/1974
Bujaków
Klaudiusz KRZYSIAK
27/04/1972
Bujaków
Stanisław KRZYSIAK
20/03/1948
Bujaków
Dariusz Krzysiak
Klaudiusz Krzysiak
Stanisław Krzysiak
PLN 20,985 for all applicants
61636/12
10/09/2012
Tomasz STOJAŃSKI
22/09/1982
Koszalin
Tomasz Stojański
PLN 6,240
68215/12
01/10/2012
Adam Piotr CHOBA
13/03/1978
Przytuły Stare
Adam Piotr Choba
PLN 2,420
80449/12
28/11/2012
Henryka Teresa CICHA-GNYP
17/12/1958
Łódź
Maciej Gnyp
11/02/1993
Łódź
Henryka Teresa Cicha- Gnyp
Maciej Gnyp
PLN 24,800 for all applicants
63053/13
17/04/2012
Krzysztof JASIŃSKI
15/10/1958
Mysłowice
Maciej SCHIPERSKI
Krzysztof Jasiński
PLN 39,670
71200/13
30/10/2013
Ryszard ZIELIŃSKI
31/12/1955
Warsaw
Ryszard Zieliński
PLN 6,100
72284/13
05/11/2013
Marcin CELEJEWSKI
29/05/1984
Będzin
Marcin Celejewski
PLN 9,010
73161/13
26/07/2013
Artur KUJAWA
18/08/1971
Warsaw
Artur Kujawa
PLN 30,220
79971/13
08/05/2014
Adrian CERAN
16/07/1991
Gębarzewo
Adrian Ceran
PLN 4,680
2247/14
23/12/2013
Mariusz KUCHARCZYK
20/04/1965
Zebrzydowice
Mariola KUCIŃSKA-TEKLIŃSKA
Mariusz Kucharczyk
PLN 16,720
2298/14
23/12/2013
Mariusz FOLTYN
24/03/1973
Kończyce Wielkie
Mariola KUCIŃSKA-TEKLIŃSKA
Mariusz Foltyn
PLN 16,720
10059/14
18/12/2013
Włodzimierz MŁYNARSKI
22/12/1950
Słubice
Włodzimierz Młynarski
PLN 18,720
10413/14
17/01/2014
Dariusz KUDEŃ
28/12/1960
Suben
Dariusz Kudeń
PLN 12,355 for the first set of proceedings;
PLN 7,990 for the second set of proceedings.
29417/14
27/10/2014
Adam KANKOWSKI
13/11/1974
Gdańsk
Adam Kankowski
PLN 36,430 for the first set of proceedings;
PLN 39,340 for the second set of proceedings
38059/14
06/05/2014
Artur KAZIKOWSKI
17/03/1979
Kamińsk
Artur Kazikowski
PLN 7,360
38768/14
07/05/2014
Jan Paweł KĘPKA
04/10/1982
Warsaw
Jan Paweł Kępka
PLN 4,400
56629/14
21/07/2014
Andrzej ZALEWSKI
28/10/1978
Krzywaniec
Andrzej Zalewski
PLN 2,020
60210/14
28/08/2014
Jerzy KOSZEWSKI
19/06/1949
Olsztyn
Tomasz KOSZEWSKI
Jerzy Koszewski
PLN 35,440
60267/14
30/09/2014
Zbigniew GAWĘCKI
25/02/1964
Warsaw
Zbigniew Gawęcki
PLN 20,570
65359/14
19/09/2014
Ernest SKURAT
06/08/1977
Gdańsk
Ernest Skurat
PLN 3,980
71858/14
06/11/2014
Józef Bronisław JĘDRUCH
10/01/1972
Częstochowa
Michał PAPROCKI
Józef Bronisław Jędruch
PLN 20,580
10139/15
19/02/2015
Paweł STRELEC
22/10/1982
Hrubieszów
Paweł Strelec
PLN 8,040
15287/15
23/03/2015
Janusz OLEWIŃSKI
13/09/1953
Siedlce
Janusz Olewiński
PLN 4,200
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy