FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 2055/15
Nikolaos VASILIADIS
against Greece
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6 February 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Kristina Pardalos, President,
Ksenija Turković,
Tim Eicke, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 December 2014,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 26 May 2017 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 Nikolaos Vasiliadis, is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Thessaloniki. He was represented before the Court by Mr K. Chatziioannou, a lawyer practising in Thessaloniki.
The Greek Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr M. Apessos, President of the State Legal Council. The Bulgarian Government did not make use of their right to intervene (under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention).
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in the Thessaloniki Police Security Directorate. He also complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention on account of a remark made by the Public Prosecutor in his proposal to the Indictment Divison of the Thessaloniki Court of Appeal.
The application had been communicated to the Government on 14 November 2016.
THE LAW
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 26 May 2017 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 Greek Government would wish to acknowledge — by way of unilateral declaration — that the conditions of detention of the above-mentioned applicant at the premises of the Police Directorate of Security of Thessaloniki, in particular lack of outdoor space for walking, along with the nature of police stations per se, which are places designed to accommodate people for a short time only, were incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention on Human Rights (“Convention”), as identified by the Court in several cases (Iatropoulos and others v. Greece, judgment of 20-4-2017, application no 23262/13, Grammosenis and others v. Greece judgment of 30.3.2017, application no 16287/13, Ali and others v. Greece, judgment of 7-4-2016, application no 13385/14, Lici v. Greece, judgment of 17.4.2014, application no 69881/12, Adamantidis v. Greece, judgment of 17.4.2014, application no 10587/10, Kavouris and others v. Greece, judgment of 17.4.2014, application no 73237/12).
Furthermore, the Government would wish to acknowledge — by way of a unilateral declaration — that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention in view of the fact that the Prosecutor, in his proposal to the Indictment Division, described the applicant’s conduct as “the previous criminal behaviour” because an arrest warrant in another case against him was pending, while this warrant had already been repealed.
If the Court strikes this case from the list, the Government is willing to offer compensation in the amount of EUR 4 000 to the applicant Nikolaos Vasiliadis. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. 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 the 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 payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
By a letter of 12 June 2017, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the grounds that the offered sum was not sufficient to cover the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage that he suffered, as well as costs and expenses. He also added that he considered it crucial to have a judgment regarding his complaint under Article 6 § 2 as it concerned a State practice that had not been dealt with by the Court.
By a letter dated 2 October 2017, the Government stated that, in general, the sums awarded to the applicants in the context of just satisfaction for violation of their rights under the Convention are exempted from any tax that may be chargeable to them.
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; Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007; and Załuska and Rogalska and others v. Poland (dec.), nos 53491/10, 72286/10 and 398 others, §§ 36-37 and 52, 20 June 2017).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Greece, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of detention in police stations (see, for example, Ali and others v. Greece, no. 13385/14, 7 April 2016; Grammosenis v. Greece, no. 16287/13, 30 March 2017; and Iatropoulos v. Greece, no. 23262/13, 20 April 2017). It has also established in a number of cases its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 6 § 2 on account of remarks made by public authorities, including public prosecutors (see, for example, Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, 23 October 2008, and Pavalache v. Romania, no. 38746/03, 18 October 2011).
Having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, 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 – and the Government’s confirmation that the sum awarded will be exempt from any tax that may be chargeable to it, 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 Articles 3 and 6 § 2 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 1 March 2018.
Renata DegenerKristina Pardalos
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy