FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 65651/11
Piotr WOJASZ
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9 July 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Päivi Hirvelä, President,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 October 2011,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 18 April 2013 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Piotr Wojasz, is a Polish national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Jastrzębie Zdrój. He was represented before the Court by Mr P. Stęchły, a lawyer practising in Rybnik.
The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the overcrowding and inadequate living conditions during his detention in Gliwice Remand Centre.
The application had been communicated to the Government.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant invoked Article 3 of the Convention and complained about the conditions of his detention in Gliwice Remand Centre.
2. Invoking Article 8 he further complained that while in detention his right to family life had been violated. In particular, he alleged that visits from his family had been restricted and he had been receiving mail with delay.
THE LAW
A. Conditions of detention
The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention which provides as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”
By letter dated 18 April 2013 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of 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 systemic violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention, in particular overcrowding, as identified by the Court in the pilot judgment given in the case of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) on 22 October 2009 (see paragraphs 135 and 147 et seq.).
Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay the sum of PLN 7,000 for the applicant, which they consider to be reasonable in the circumstances of the present case. 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 period 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 ...”
The applicant did not submit any comments in reply.
The Court recalls 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 recalls 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 will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003‑VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the conditions of detention (see, for example, Orchowski v. Poland no. 17885/04; Norbert Sikorski v. Poland no. 17599/05 and Łatak v. Poland (dec.) no. 52070/08).
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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
B. Remaining complaint
The applicant further invoked Article 8 of the Convention and complained about alleged restrictions put on his family life and correspondence during his detention.
The Court notes, however, that the applicant has failed to provide any evidence in support of his claim. The complaint is therefore wholly unsubstantiated.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in respect of the complaint 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 so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Fatoş AracıPäivi Hirvelä
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy