FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 19320/09
Joanna SIWIŃSKA against Poland
and 28 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10 July 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Aleš Pejchal, President,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Jovan Ilievski, 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 declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 13 July and 6 October 2017 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration,
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 on 13 July and 6 October 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.
A. Length of proceedings
7. On various dates in 2017 twenty-two applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations. The remaining six applicants made no comments on the Government’s 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.
B. Other alleged violations of the Convention
16. The applicants listed in the attached Appendix under nos: 19320/09, 19785/11, 22359/11, 63767/14, 66932/14, 3465/15, 10939/15, also raised a number of complains under Articles 5 § 3 and 6 of the Convention.
17. Having regard to the facts of the case, the Government’s declarations, and its decision to strike out the complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, the Court considers that the main legal question raised in the present application has been resolved. It concludes, therefore, that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the applicants’ remaining complaints under Articles 5 § 3 and 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007).
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in its part concerning the complaints of unreasonable length of civil and criminal proceedings in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Holds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Articles 5 § 3 and 6 of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 6 September 2018.
Renata DegenerAleš Pejchal
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
Amount proposed in Unilateral Declaration
19320/09
06/04/2009
Joanna SIWIŃSKA
22/12/1960
Warszawa
Agnieszka ZEMKE-GÓRECKA
PLN 11,280
61701/09
10/12/2008
Zdzisław Eugeniusz PIEŚCIKOWSKI
16/11/1953
Poznań
PLN 5,520 for the first set of proceedings and PLN 2,610 for the second set of proceedings
19785/11
17/02/2011
Janusz BUDZIAK
17/11/1964
Nowy Sącz
PLN 3,900
22359/11
17/03/2011
ArturNIEDŹWIEDŹ
14/02/1971
Gdańsk Przeróbka
PLN 11,900
24624/11
07/04/2011
Andrzej RYSZKA
30/10/1947
Sosnowiec
Janusz MARGASIŃSKI
PLN 7,800
36134/11
04/05/2011
Dariusz KARWOWSKI
13/03/1971
Warszawa
PLN 12,430 for the first set of proceedings and PLN 17,300 for the second set of proceedings
59236/12
29/08/2012
Marian MAKOWSKI
27/08/1941
Radom
Tomasz BURDA
PLN 7,980
59237/12
29/08/2012
Jan JANIK
01/11/1948
Radom
Tomasz BURDA
PLN 7,980
60129/12
30/08/2012
Andrzej KRZYMIANOWSKI
15/04/1967
Bielsko-Biała
PLN 22,370
67847/12
26/09/2012
Grzegorz Jacek SKOWROŃSKI
10/05/1975
Brzeg
PLN 9,660
70498/12
31/01/2013
Bartłomiej MAREK
31/08/1972
Strzelce Opolskie
PLN 19,020
74804/13
28/10/2013
Grzegorz DUBLAS
08/11/1972
Gdańsk
PLN 9,660
77967/13
03/12/2013
Gracjan WAWRZYNIAK
13/01/1981
Skoki
PLN 12,270
39795/14
20/05/2014
Beata Urszula PRUS
06/10/1970
Chełm
PLN 12,510
40409/14
22/05/2014
Dariusz GĄSIOROWSKI
24/03/1968
Chełm
PLN 12,510
41186/14
26/05/2014
Jerzy FEDORCZUK
23/04/1962
Chełm
PLN 9,370
41204/14
20/05/2014
Aneta Katarzyna WALCZUK
28/11/1970
Dorohusk
PLN 9,080
41573/14
26/05/2014
Dorota GĄSIOROWSKA
16/03/1969
Chełm
PLN 9,370
41976/14
23/05/2014
Anna SAWICKA-POTURAJ
14/06/1971
Chełm
PLN 12,510
41984/14
23/05/2014
Stanisław SZTUBER
31/01/1967
Swierze
PLN 12,510
41993/14
26/05/2014
Grzegorz ŚWIŚ
12/04/1970
Chełm
PLN 9,370
50631/14
11/08/2014
Przemysław OSIŃSKI
21/01/1973
Gdańsk
PLN 9,670
59478/14
19/08/2014
Wiesław PASTUŁA
27/03/1953
Mielec
Tomasz URBAN
PLN 22,440
63767/14
05/09/2014
Siergiej PŁOCYN
19/07/1962
Wrocław
PLN 9,360
66932/14
02/10/2014
Dariusz ĆWIERTNIA
17/07/1968
Wadowice
PLN 6,420
70581/14
20/10/2014
Paweł GRABOWSKI
09/10/1979
Halinów
PLN 6,040
76542/14
04/12/2014
Marek RASIŃSKI
29/10/1956
Warszawa
PLN 20,600
3465/15
09/01/2015
Tomasz AUGUSTYN
13/12/1974
Wrocław
PLN 7,800
10939/15
26/05/2015
Sebastian KUCHARCZYK
04/08/1988
Gdańsk
PLN 6,360
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy