FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 60537/16
Piotr SZCZĘSNY
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 November 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Aleš Pejchal, President,
Tim Eicke,
Jovan Ilievski, judges,
and Abel Campos, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 October 2016,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 30 May 2018 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 Piotr Szczęsny, is a Polish national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Żelechów. He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Adamczyk, a lawyer practising in Katowice.
The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, and subsequently by Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention.
On 3 March 2015 the Siedlce Regional Court had granted the applicant PLN 2,000 (approximately EUR 500) in compensation for the fact that he had been detained in overcrowded cells in Siedlce Prison for approximately 6 months.
On 2 June 2017 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 30 May 2018 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 violation of Article 3 of the Convention due to the conditions of applicant’s detention, in particular overcrowding, in Siedlce Prison. Simultaneously, the Government declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of PLN 12,000 (twelve thousand Polish zlotys) which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the individual circumstances of the present case, as well as the Court’s case-law in similar cases (see Ołowski v. Poland, application no. 66417/10, decision of 9.09.2014; Donke v. Poland, application no. 17442/13, decision of 9.09.2014).
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 final ruling 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 Government 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 lists of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention ...”
By a letter of 28 September 2018, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the amount proposed by the Government was too low.
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”.
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 applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court has examined the declaration 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).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the systematic violation of Article 3 of the Convention due to the inadequate detention conditions, in particular overcrowding (see, for example, Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, 22 October 2009, and Łatak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010).
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 respondent 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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 6 December 2018.
Abel CamposAleš Pejchal
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy