ZAŁUSKA, ROGALSKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE

Application no. 53491/10
Jan ZAŁUSKA against Poland

Application no. 72286/10
Marianna ROGALSKA against Poland
and 398 other applications
(see lists appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 20 June 2017 as a Chamber composed of:

Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, President,
Kristina Pardalos,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Ksenija Turković,
Pauliine Koskelo,
Tim Eicke,
Jovan Ilievski, judges,

and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Rutkowski and Others v. Poland and 591 other applications, nos.72287/10 and others,

Having regard to 400 unilateral declarations submitted by the Government and 270 formal declarations from the applicants accepting a friendly settlement of their cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE AND FACTS

1. All the present 400 applications were lodged against the Republic of Poland under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Polish nationals. Application no. 53491/10 was lodged by Mr Jan Załuska (“the first applicant”) on 16 August 2010. Application no. 72286/10 was lodged by Ms Marianna Rogalska (“the second applicant”) on 1 December 2010.

2. Names of the remaining applicants and details concerning their cases are set out in the Annexes I and II to this decision.

3. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The first applicant was represented by Mr W. Wrzecionkowski, a lawyer practising in Olsztyn, Poland. The second applicant was not legally represented in the proceedings before the Court. The names of the remaining applicants’ representatives are listed in the above-mentioned annexes.

4. 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.

5. 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 and 591 other applications, nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, §§ 223-228 and the ninth operative provision, 7 July 2015).

A. Pilot-judgment procedure in Rutkowski and Others

6. On 7 July 2015 the Court delivered the pilot judgment in the case of Rutkowski and Others, in which it found a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that had their root causes in two systemic problems, namely excessive length of judicial proceedings in Poland and deficient operation of a domestic remedy designed to provide non-pecuniary damage for excessive length of proceedings (“the length complaint”) under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaint about breach of the right to have a case examined in an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and in judicial proceedings without undue delay (ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2004 Act”).

7. As regards excessive length of proceedings, the Court held, among other things, that the complexity of that problem “which may be – and often is – compounded by the national circumstances, including budgetary constraints, does not allow for one or even more specific remedying measures to be prescribed”. It consequently decided to “abstain from indicating any detailed measures to be taken to tackle the problem”, stressing that the Committee of Ministers, in the course of the pending execution of judgments concerning excessive length of proceedings against Poland “is better placed and equipped to monitor the measures that need to be adopted by Poland in that respect”. The Court noted that Poland had already recognised the need to take actions “aimed at expediting and modernising the procedure before the national courts”. However, it considered that “given the scale and complexity of the problem of excessive length of proceedings, the respondent State must continue to make further, consistent long-term efforts to achieve compliance by the national courts with the “reasonable-time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1” (see Rutkowski and Others, cited above, §§ 207-209).

8. In respect of the deficient operation of a complaint under the 2004 Act in its compensatory aspect, the Court found that there were two interrelated causes behind the violation of Article 13 in Rutkowski and Others case.

The first was the Polish court’s non-compliance with the Court’s case-law on the assessment of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings, in particular the Court’s judgments holding that the period to be taken into consideration comprises the entirety of the proceedings. In contrast, the Polish courts dealing with complaints under the 2004 Act applied practice called “fragmentation of proceedings”, making a “fragmentary” assessment of the length of proceedings, limited to their current stage.

The second cause, linked with and partly resulting from the practice of “fragmentation” was the Polish court’s non-compliance with standards for “appropriate and sufficient redress” to be afforded to a victim for a breach of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time. In consequence, the level of domestic awards was “evidently below the threshold fixed by the Court for victim status in the Scordino (no. 1) judgment” (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 268-272, ECHR 2006‑V). The Court accordingly held that “the principal issue for the State in implementation of this judgment is to ensure that a complaint under the 2004 Act in its compensatory aspect will not only be available in law but will also be fully effective in practice”. As it did in respect of the systemic problem identified under Article 6 § 1, the Court decided not to indicate any specific measures to be taken by the State or any time-limit for their implementation. It considered that the process of the implementation primarily involved the change of judicial practice and approach, which required “a number of steps to be taken and raised issues going beyond the Court’s function as defined by Article 19 of the Convention” (see Rutkowski and Others, cited above, §§ 211-222).

9. In the operative provisions of the judgment the Court held, in particular, as follows:

“ ...

3. that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the unreasonable length of proceedings in the applicants’ cases;

4. that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the deficient operation of the complaint under the 2004 Act in that it did not provide the applicants with appropriate and sufficient compensation for a breach of Article 6 § 1;

5. that the above violations of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 originated in a practice that was incompatible with the Convention, consisting in the unreasonable length of civil and criminal proceedings in Poland and in the Polish courts’ non-compliance with the Court’s case-law on the assessment of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings and “appropriate and sufficient redress” for a violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time;

6. that the respondent State must, through appropriate legal or other measures, secure the national courts’ compliance with the relevant principles under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.”

10. The Court also decided:

“...

9. to give notice to the Polish Government of the 591 applications listed in the annex to the judgment in accordance with Rule 54 § 2(b) of the Rules of Court ;

10. to adjourn adversarial proceedings in communicated cases for two years from the date on which the judgment had become final;

...”

B. The Government’s unilateral declarations

11. On 7 December 2015 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration comprising individual and general measures to be taken in implementation of the pilot judgment. That declaration concerned 50 applicants, in respect of whom the Government acknowledged a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of proceedings in their cases 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 declaration. 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 (for the full text, see paragraphs 23-26 below).

12. The above declaration was followed by four further declarations phrased in the same terms, which were submitted, respectively, on 3 March 2016 (50 cases), 7 July 2016 (100 cases), 3 November 2016 (112 cases) and 28 February 2017 (105 cases). The declarations were transmitted to the applicants concerned who were invited, if they so wished, to make comments.

13. In response to the unilateral declarations, in 270 cases the applicants accepted the Government’s proposal. In 112 cases the applicant’s rejected the Government’s offer of payment, asking the Court for higher just-satisfaction awards. In 18 cases the applicants failed to make any comments.

C. Developments following the pilot judgment

14. On 9 September 2016 the Government submitted to Parliament a bill on amendments to the law on complaint about breach of the right to have a case examined in an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and in judicial proceedings without undue delay [“the 2004 Act”] and certain other statutes (rządowy projekt ustawy o zmianie ustawy skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki oraz niektórych innych ustaw ; “the 2016 Government Bill”). In an explanatory report, it was stated that the bill was introduced “in view of the necessity to implement the [Court’s] judgment in the case of Rutkowski and Others v. Poland”.

15. The 2016 Government Bill proposed, among other things, an amendment to section 12(4) of the 2004 Act whereby a court dealing with a length complaint, in addition to being obliged to award in each case at least the statutory minimum compensation of 2,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (around 500 euros (EUR)) under the current legislation, would be obliged to grant to a claimant a minimum sum of PLN 1,000 (around EUR 250) for each year of the current length of proceedings.

16. The first reading of the bill in Sejm, the lower house of the Polish Parliament, took place on 6 October 2016. In the course of legislative work the name of the bill was changed to the “bill on amendments to the law on the organisation of the courts of law and other statutes”.

17. On 4 November 2016, after the third reading, Sejm adopted the 2016 Government Bill with some amendments. In particular, it amended draft section 12(4) of the 2004 Act and reduced the statutory minimum award per year to PLN 500 (around EUR 125).

18. On 15 November 2016, at the next stage of the legislative procedure, the Senate (the upper house of the Polish Parliament) amended the above provision in the bill and increased the sum to PLN 1,000. However, subsequently, Sejm rejected the Senate’s amendments.

19. On 30 November 2016 Sejm passed the law on amendments to the law on the organisation of the courts of law and other statutes (ustawa o zmianie ustawy – Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych oraz niektórych innych ustaw – “the 2016 Amendment”), which, in section 6, introduced a number of amendments into the 2004 Act. The 2016 Amendment entered into force on 6 January 2016.

20. A new subparagraph 3 was added to section 1 of the 2004 Act, pursuant to which the courts are obliged to apply the Act “in accordance with the standards deriving from the [Convention]”.

21. Section 2 was rephrased and at present the courts dealing with length complaints under the 2004 Act must assess the length of proceedings as a whole. It reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:

2. For the purposes of determining whether [the length of proceedings] in a case has been excessive, [a court] should, in particular, assess the promptness and correctness of actions taken by the court [dealing with the case] in order to give a decision terminating proceedings in that case or actions taken by the prosecutor conducting or supervising the investigation in order to terminate the investigation or actions taken by the court [dealing with the case] or court bailiff in order to handle and terminate ...the enforcement proceedings.

In [its] assessment [the court] shall take into account the entire current length of the proceedings from their institution to the moment when a complaint [under the 2004 Act] is examined, regardless of the stage at which the complaint has been lodged and [having regard] to the nature of the case, its factual and legal complexity, what is at stake for the party who has lodged the complaint, the issues examined and the conduct of the parties, especially the party alleging excessive length of the proceedings.”

22. New section 12(4) of the 2004 Act, which sets levels of compensation for non-pecuniary damage for excessive length of judicial proceedings, provides, in so far as relevant, as follows:

“Allowing a complaint the court may, at the complainant’s request, grant him just satisfaction in an amount ranging from 2,000 to 20,000 Polish zlotys to be paid by the State Treasury or, if the complaint concerns excessive length of proceedings conducted by a bailiff – to be paid by the bailiff. The sum of just satisfaction, within the limits indicated in the first sentence, shall amount to not less than 500 Polish zlotys for each year of the current length of proceedings, regardless of the number of stages of proceedings at which excessive length has been established.

The court may award a sum higher than 500 Polish zlotys, if a given case is of a particular importance for a claimant, who by his conduct has not culpably contributed to the prolongation of the proceedings. Sums that have already been awarded to a claimant in the same case by way of just satisfaction shall be offset from the awarded amount. ...”

THE LAW

A. The Government’s unilateral declarations

23. The Government’s unilateral declarations, in part relating to general considerations read, in so far as relevant, as follows:

“THE GOVERNMENT’S UNILATERAL DECLARATION

Having regard to the final judgment delivered on 7 July 2015 fay the Chamber of the Court in the case Rutkowski and Others v. Poland (applications no. 72287/10, 13927/11 and 46187/11), in which the Court:

(a) found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the unreasonable length of proceedings in the applicants’ cases;

(b) found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the deficient operation of the complaint under the Law on complaint about breach of the right to have a case examined in an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and in judicial proceedings without undue delay ("the 2004 Act") in that it did not provide the applicants with appropriate and sufficient compensation for a breach of Article 6 § 1;

(c) held that the above violations of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 originated in a practice that was incompatible with the Convention, consisting in the unreasonable length of civil and criminal proceedings in Poland and in the Polish courts’ non-compliance with the Court’s case-law on the assessment of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings and "appropriate and sufficient redress" for a violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time;

(d) directed that the respondent State must, through appropriate legal or other measures, secure the national courts’ compliance with the relevant principles under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention;

(e) decided to give notice of the 591 applications listed in the annex to the judgment in accordance with Rule 54 § 2(b) of the Rules of Court;

(f) adjourned adversarial proceedings in communicated cases for two years from the date on which the judgment had become final;

(g) adjourned adversarial proceedings in future similar cases for one year from the date of the delivery of this judgment,

the Government hereby wish to make a unilateral declaration with a view to affording redress to ...

applicants indicated in the list below, out of 591 who lodged their applications with the Court before the delivery of the judgment (see the ninth operative provision and paragraph 227 of the judgment).

The Government also make, as an integral part of this document, a declaration as to general measures which are to be taken in accordance with the terms of the judgment.”

24. Part relating to individual measures reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:

“INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

Pursuant to the ninth operative provision of the Rutkowski and Others v. Poland judgment, the Court gave notice to the Polish Government of the 591 applications listed in the annex to the judgment in accordance with Rule 54 § 2(b) of the Rules of Court.

Under the tenth operative provision and paragraphs 227-228 of the judgment, the Court allowed the Government a two-year time limit for processing the communicated applications and affording redress to all victims who had lodged their applications with the Court before the delivery of the judgment.

In light of the above the Government hereby wish to express - by way of the unilateral declaration - their acknowledgement that in the circumstances of the 50 above-mentioned cases (see the detailed list annexed to the present declaration):

- the length of the proceedings did not fulfil the "reasonable-time" requirement referred to in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; and

- the complaint under the 2004 Act did not provide the applicants with an "effective remedy", required by Article 13 of the Convention.

Simultaneously, the Government declare that they offer to pay the applicants the amounts indicated in respect of each case in the list annexed to the present declaration, which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the individual circumstances of those cases.

The sums referred to above, which 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 undertake 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.”

25. In addition, the Government also made, as an integral part of the document, a declaration as to general measures which were to be taken “in accordance with the terms of the [pilot] judgment”. It reads as follows:

“GENERAL MEASURES

Having regard to their obligations under Article 46 of the Convention as to the execution of the Court’s judgment in the case of Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, in particular those relating to general measures to be adopted in order to secure through appropriate legal or other measures, the national courts’ compliance with the relevant principles under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention not only in respect of the applicants in that case but also other persons who are victims of similar violations or may be affected by similar violations in the future, the Government of the Republic of Poland, in order to ensure the rapid and complete implementation of the Court’s judgment declare that:

1. Being aware of the increasing problem of procrastination of preparatory and judicial proceedings caused by a range of factors of a legal, administrative or logistical nature which frequently concern:

inadequate court premises, an insufficient number of judges or administrative staff, lack of the proper case management, lack of the adequate organisation of the trial, including the defective service of process and lengthy intervals between hearings, procedural loopholes allowing unjustified adjournments, overly complex or cumbersome procedures, the repetition of remittals ordered on appeal, belated submission of expert reports, inefficiency in collecting expert evidence, they has recently introduced a significant number of extensive legal changes, including in the Code of Civil Procedure and in the Code of Criminal Procedure aimed at acceleration and simplifying of the preparatory and court proceedings. The changes are introduced e.g. by:

1) The Act of 29 August 2014 amending the Code of Civil Procedure and Act on court fees in civil cases which entered into force on 27 October 2014 and provides e.g. for implementation of electronic minutes and electronic reasons of judgements as well as for abandoning of the obligatory submission of the report in appeal proceedings by the reporting judge, extending the possibility of not drafting the reasons by the second instance court ex officio and introduction of a possibility of drafting simplified reasons of the second instance court judgment.

2) the Act of 15 January 2015 amending the Code of Civil Procedure and Other Acts which will enter into force on 1 April 2016 and provides e.g. for further implementation of IT solutions in regard to civil proceedings, especially in regard to real estate register proceedings, and further enlargement of the competences of court division officials in regard to actions in real estate register proceedings and register proceedings.

3) the Act of 10 July 2015 amending the Acts - Civil Code, Code of Civil Procedure and Other Acts which will enter into force on 8 September 2016 and provides e.g. for liberalization of regulations on the form of legal actions and the new approach to documents in civil proceedings.

4) the Act of 27 September 2013 amending the Acts - Code of Criminal Proceedings and Other Acts which entered into force on 1 July 2015. It is anticipated that due to the adopted amendments, the criminal proceedings will be shortened by 1/3. The most important changes introduced by the above mentioned amendment are the following:

• to streamline and accelerate proceedings;

• to simplify criminal proceedings and to make them less formal;

• to establish de novo basis for using preventive measures;

• to assign some of the workload of judges, court presidents and heads of sections to judges’ associates;

• to achieve full conformity of the code’s regulations with the standards following from the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal and the European Court of Human Rights;

5) the Act of 4 April 2014 amending the Code of Conduct in the Misdemeanor Cases which entered into force on 8 November 2014 and introduced e-minutes and e-reasons also in misdemeanor cases.

6) Act of 10 July 2015 amending the Code of Criminal Proceedings which enters into force on 1 January 2016 and introduces e-minutes in criminal cases.

II. They commit themselves to improving the existing legal measures by introducing necessary amendments of the 2004 Act in order to remove deficiencies indicated in the judgment (see paragraphs 207-222 of the judgment), in particular by improving the practical operation of the mechanism designed to provide the claimants with sufficient compensation for excessive length of proceedings and preventing the fragmentary evaluation of the length of proceedings by the domestic courts ("fragmentation of proceedings"), as required by Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention.

III. They undertake that, in addition to adopting legal measures designed to remove obstacles in implementing the right to a hearing within a reasonable time, such as measures indicated above accelerating and modernising procedures before the courts, they will intensify their endeavours to conduct further activities aimed at preventing similar violations of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention in the future, including any necessary legislative changes.”

26. The Government’s declarations also included a request for the cases to be struck out of the Court’s list under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, which is phrased in the following terms:

“FINAL CONCLUSIONS

Having due account of the above unilateral declaration the Government respectfully suggest that the above declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason" justifying the striking the cases annexed to the present declaration out of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.”

B. Application of Article 37 § 1 in the pilot-judgment procedure

27. Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, states:

“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that

...

(b) the matter has been resolved; or

(c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.

However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”

28. Considering whether it is justified to apply Article 37 of the Convention in the context of the pilot-judgment procedure, the Court consistently held that it is a fundamental feature of that procedure that the Court’s assessment of the situation complained of in a “pilot” case necessarily extends beyond the sole interests of the individual applicant and requires it to examine the case also from the perspective of the general measures that need to be taken in the interest of other already or potentially affected persons (see, among many other examples, Hutten‑Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97, § 238, ECHR 2006‑VIII ; Broniowski v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], no. 31443/96, §§ 36-37; Hutten-Czapska v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], no. 35014/97, § 33; Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 3485/02, § 83, ECHR 2011 (extracts); Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 60041/08 and 60054/08, § 111, ECHR 2010 (extracts); Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, § 413, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Kurić and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 26828/06, § 138 ECHR 2014; Anastasov and Others v. Slovenia (dec.) no. 65020/13, 18 October 2016, § 90).

29. The object of that procedure is, on the one hand, to reduce the threat to the effective functioning of the Convention system deriving from repetitive cases that originate in systemic problems and, on the other, to facilitate the most speedy and effective resolution of a systemic dysfunction affecting the protection of Convention rights in the national legal order. By incorporating into the process of execution of the pilot judgment the interests of all other existing or potential victims of the systemic violation identified, the procedure aims to afford redress to all actual and potential victims of that dysfunction, as well as to the particular applicant in the pilot case (see Broniowski (merits), cited above, § 191 and 193-194; Broniowski (friendly settlement), cited above, §§ 36-37; Hutten‑Czapska v. Poland (merits), cited above, § 238; Kurić and Others (merits), cited above, § 413; Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź, cited above, §§ 86-87; and Anastasov and Others, cited above, §§ 94-96).

30. In consequence, in cases dealt with in the context of this procedure, the Court must have regard not only to the applicant’s situation vis-à-vis individual measures taken by the State but also to measures aimed at resolving the general underlying defect in the domestic legal order identified in the principal judgment as the source of the violation found (see, mutatis mutandis, Wolkenberg and Others, cited above, § 35; and, mutatis mutandis, Broniowski (friendly settlement), cited above, § 36-37 and Hutten-Czapska (friendly settlement), cited above, § 35).

C. The Court’s assessment

1. As regards the case of Mr Załuska and 269 other cases in which the applicants’ accepted the Government’s unilateral proposal as to payment of just satisfaction

(a) Joinder of the applications

31. In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court the Court decides that the above 270 applications should be joined.

(b) Application of Article 37 § 1 taken in conjunction with Article 39 of the Convention

32. The Court observes at the outset that the applicants concerned accepted the Government’s unilateral declaration, whereby the Government acknowledged a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention in their cases and offered payment of sums indicated in in the attached Annex I to the decision, in order “to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses” arising from that violation (see paragraph 24 above). In consequence of the applicants’ acceptance, by mutual agreement as to the terms proposed by the respondent Government, the declarations submitted by the parties are regarded as a friendly settlement for the purposes of Article 39 of the Convention.

33. Article 39 of the Convention, conferring on the Court the power to strike a case out of its list of cases in the event of a friendly settlement, provides:

“If a friendly settlement is effected, the Court shall strike the case out of its list by means of a decision which shall be confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.”

The exercise of this power is, however, subject to the conditions stated in Article 37 § 1. The Court may strike an application out of its list only if it is satisfied that the solution of the matter embodied in the settlement arrived at between the parties is based on “respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto” (see Broniowski (friendly settlement), §§ 32-33).

34. As stated above, in the context of a friendly settlement reached, as in the present case, after delivery of a pilot judgment on the merits of the case, the notion of “respect for human rights” requires the Court to examine the case also from the point view of “relevant general measures” (see paragraphs 28-31 above; see also Broniowski (friendly settlement), cited above, § 36).

In that regard, the Court considers it important to recall that, in view of the systemic character of the shortcoming at the root of the finding of a violation in a pilot judgment, it is evidently desirable for the effective functioning of the Convention system that individual and general redress should go hand in hand. The respondent State has within its power to take the necessary general and individual measures at the same time and to proceed to a friendly settlement with the applicant on the basis of an agreement incorporating both categories of measures, thereby facilitating the performance of the respective tasks of the Court and the Committee of Ministers under Articles 41 and 46 of the Convention Conversely, any failure by a respondent State to act in such a manner necessarily places the Convention system under greater strain and undermines the principle of subsidiarity underlying the system (see Broniowski (friendly settlement), cited above, § 36.)

35. The friendly settlement reached between the applicants and the Polish Government in the present cases comprises both the general and the individual measures intended to fulfil the Polish State’s obligations under the pilot judgment

Consequently, in determining whether it can strike the present application out of its list pursuant to Article 39 and Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention on the ground that the matter has been resolved and whether or not respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols require the further examination of these cases, the Court will have regard not only to the applicants’ individual situation but also to measures aimed at resolving the underlying general defect in the Polish legal order and judicial practice identified in the Rutkowski and Others judgment.

(i) Individual measures

36. As regards the redress afforded to the applicants, the Court notes that the payment offered provides them with just satisfaction which, on average, exceeds by 25% sums that would have been sufficient for the Court to find that the applicants could no longer claim to be victims for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention (see Scordino (no. 1), cited above §§ 189-190 and 268-272; and Rutkowski and Others, cited above, §§ 174-175 and 211‑221).

If assessed from the point of view of the Court’s notional awards, the sums offered by the Government amount on average to 50-60% of what would have been the Court’s award if there had been no remedy for excessive length of proceedings in Poland (see Scordino (no. 1), cited above §§ 268-272).

37. In view of the foregoing, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine and in so far as individual measures of redress are concerned, the Court finds no circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which would require it to continue the examination of the present applications.

(ii) General measures

38. The terms of the Government’s declaration, constituting an integral part of the agreement, are explicitly stated to be intended to take into account not only particular applicants in the present cases but also “other persons who are victims of similar violations or may be affected by similar violations in the future, ... in order to ensure the rapid and complete implementation” of the pilot judgment and the Government’s “obligations under Article 46 of the Convention as to the execution of the Court’s judgment in the case of Rutkowski and Others v. Poland” (see paragraph 25 above).

39. In Rutkowski and Others Court found that the root cause for a systemic violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention identified in the pilot judgment was “practice incompatible with the Convention. It held, in particular as follows:

“(i) As regards Article 6 § 1

...

209. ... [A]s the facts of the present case demonstrate, given the scale and complexity of the problem of excessive length of proceedings, the respondent State must continue to make further, consistent long-term efforts to achieve compliance by the national courts with the “reasonable-time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1.

210. Before analysing the root causes behind the violation of Article 13 found in the instant case, the Court would again stress that, apart from the conduct of domestic authorities, such factors as deficiencies in domestic legislation governing the organisation of the judicial system and the conduct of legal proceedings may often contribute to excessive length of proceedings (see paragraphs 184 and 207 above).

(ii) As regards Article 13

211. In its assessment of the applicants’ individual complaints the Court has already found that there are two interrelated root causes behind the violation of Article 13 found in the instant case (see paragraphs 180-183 above).

212. The first cause is the Polish courts’ non-compliance with the Court’s case-law on the assessment of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings, in particular its judgments holding that the period to be taken into consideration comprises the entirety of the domestic proceedings.

The second cause, linked with and partly resulting from the practice of the limited – fragmentary – assessment of the length of proceedings, is the Polish courts’ non-compliance with the standards for “sufficient redress” to be afforded to a party by the domestic court for a breach of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time.

...

217. ... The main object of the present applications and 650 other similar cases pending before the Court is to seek just satisfaction before the Court for a violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time because the applicants were unable to obtain it before the national courts. The direct cause for this situation is the insufficiency of compensation awarded for non-pecuniary damage for unreasonable delays at domestic level (see paragraph 7 above).

As stated above, the second, interrelated cause behind the violation of Article 13 is in the Polish courts’ non-compliance with the Court’s case-law setting out standards for “sufficient and appropriate” redress. The present case and numerous similar cases listed in the annex to the judgment demonstrate that the level of domestic awards is evidently below the threshold fixed by the Court for victim status in the Scordino (no. 1) judgment. The statistical information produced by the parties supports the applicants’ opinion that progress in adjusting domestic awards is markedly slow. Moreover, it does not appear that the setting of the minimum award and increasing of the maximum award have encouraged the Polish courts to grant higher sums, reasonably related to the Court’s standards. The average amounts awarded are at the lower end of the scale set by the 2004 Act and oscillate around the minimum sum of PLN 2,000, in particular as regards complaints examined by the regional courts (see paragraphs 108-117 and 189 and 194 above).

218. The reluctance on the part of the national courts to award more substantial amounts may be linked with many factors, which are not for the Court but for the State to identify so that it can ensure compliance with the Convention in the future. However, the Court cannot but note that in the present case each applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damage could have been satisfied in accordance with the Scordino (no. 1) requirements at domestic level, without the need for any of them to address their complaints to the Court – if only the relevant courts had respected the Convention standards. ...

...

219. In consequence, despite the introduction of a domestic remedy by Poland – a complaint designed to provide “appropriate just satisfaction” for unreasonable length of judicial proceedings (see paragraphs 80 and 89 above), the Court is continually forced to act as a substitute for the national courts and handle hundreds of repetitive cases where its only task is to award compensation which should have been obtained by using a domestic remedy.

This situation, subsisting for already several years in Poland, is not only incompatible with Article 13 but has also led to a practical reversal of the respective roles to be played by the Court and the national courts in the Convention system. It has upset the balance of responsibilities between the respondent State and the Court under Articles 1 and 19 of the Convention. In that regard, the Court would once again reiterate that, in accordance with Article 1, the primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention is laid on the national authorities and that the machinery of complaint to the Court is only subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see paragraph 170 above and Kudła, cited above, § 152). The Court’s task, as defined by Article 19, cannot be said to be best achieved by repeating the same findings of a Convention violation in a series of cases (see also paragraph 202 above).

220. Indeed, the principal issue for the State in implementation of this judgment is to ensure that a complaint under the 2004 Act in its compensatory aspect will not only be available in law but will also be fully effective in practice. ...”

40. In their declarations, Government committed themselves “to improving the existing legal measures by introducing necessary amendments [to] the 2004 Act in order to remove deficiencies indicated in the [Rutkowski and Others ] judgment ..., in particular by improving the practical operation of the mechanism designed to provide the claimants with sufficient compensation for excessive length of proceedings and preventing the fragmentary evaluation of the length of proceedings by the domestic courts (‘fragmentation of proceedings’), as required by Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention” (see paragraph 25 above).

41. In realisation of that promise, the Polish Parliament adopted the 2016 Amendment, a law designed to eliminate the systemic dysfunctions as identified in the Rutkowski and Others judgment (see paragraphs 14-22 above).

Under the present legislation, the courts dealing with complaints under the 2004 Act are obliged, under section 1(3), to apply that act “in accordance with the standards deriving from the Convention” (see paragraph 20 above).

Furthermore, pursuant to section 2(2) as amended by the 2016 Amendment, they are obliged to take into account the “entire current length of the proceedings” and examine their overall duration for compliance with the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1 (see paragraph 21 above). That provision has been designed to put an end to the previous practice of “fragmentation of proceedings”, limiting the assessment of the length of domestic proceedings to their current stage, found to have been incompatible with the Convention and identified as one of principal causes behind the systemic violation of Article 13 (see Rutkowski and Others, cited above, §§ 212-213).

42. It is also to be noted that the amended section 12(4) in addition to obliging the courts, as under the previous legislation, to award in each justified case at least the statutory minimum compensation of PLN 2,000, introduced a new provision whereby the courts are obliged to grant at least PLN 500 for each year of the current length of proceedings (see paragraph 22 above).

At the present stage, before the Polish courts have developed their case-law in application of section 12(4) of the 2004 Act, the Court cannot speculate what impact this new element for determining redress may have on adjusting levels of domestic awards to the standards required by the Court’s case-law. Having regard to the fact that the systemic violation of Article 13 in Rutkowski and Others derived from the continued, if not chronic, insufficiency of compensation awarded for non-pecuniary damage for unreasonable delays at domestic level, the national courts play the crucial role in ensuring that future awards are reasonably related to the Court’s standards for “appropriate and sufficient redress” (see Rutkowski and Others, cited above, §§ 217-218). Since, as stated in the pilot judgment, the process of its implementation primarily involves the change of judicial practice and approach (ibid. § 222), the judicial authorities bear the ultimate responsibility for the effective enforcement of the general measures introduced by the Polish State.

43. Lastly, the Court would note that the Government also undertook “in addition to adopting legal measures designed to remove obstacles in implementing the right to a hearing within a reasonable time, such as measures ... accelerating and modernising procedures before the courts, they [would] intensify their endeavours to conduct further activities aimed at preventing similar violations of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention in the future, including any necessary legislative changes” (see paragraph 25 above).

(c) Conclusion

44. The Court observes that a number of issues that were at root cause of the violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 the Convention found in the pilot judgment – the so-called “fragmentation” of the proceedings” resulting from the national courts’ non-compliance with the Court’s case-law on the “reasonable time” assessment have been addressed by the 2016 Amendment. As stated above (see paragraph 42 above), the issue of the perceived general insufficiency of domestic awards for excessive length of proceedings can only be resolved by the future continued compliance of the Polish courts with the Court’s standards for “appropriate and sufficient redress” and their application of section 12(4) of the 2004 Act in accordance with those standards.

The Government also undertook to take further actions aimed at preventing future similar violations of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, including any necessary amendments to the current legislation (see paragraphs 25 and 43 above).

45. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the respondent Government, by the various measures adopted in implementation of the Rutkowski and Others judgment and promised legislative actions as stated in their declarations (see paragraph 25 above) demonstrated an active and reliable commitment to take measures intended to remedy the systemic defects in the Polish legislation and judicial practice identified by the Court in its pilot judgment. While, by virtue of Article 46 of the Convention, it is for the Committee of Ministers to evaluate the general measures taken by the Government and their implementation as far as the supervision of the Court’s judgment is concerned, the Court in exercising its own power to decide whether to strike the cases out of the list under Articles 37 § 1 (b) and 39 following a friendly settlement between the parties cannot but rely on the respondent Government actual and promised remedial action as an important positive factor going to the issue of “respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto” (see paragraph 36 above and Broniowski (friendly settlement), cited above, § 42).

46. Having regard to the object of the pilot-judgment as stated above (see paragraphs 28-30 above) and the fact that within some 15 months after the judgment in Rutkowski and Others case had become final the respondent State introduced the general measures in the interest of other persons similarly affected, as well as committed itself to take such necessary measures in the future, the Court is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols. Accordingly, it finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the present applications.

47. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the 270 cases concerned out of the Court’s list.

2. As regards the case of Ms Rogalska and 129 other cases in which the applicants refused the Government’s proposal or failed to make any comments on the Government’s proposal

48. In 112 cases the applicants, including Ms Rogalska, did not accept the Government’s offer of payment, submitting that in the particular circumstances of their cases they should be awarded significantly higher sums. They asked the Court to continue to examine their cases on the merits. The remaining 18 applicants made no comments on the Government’s unilateral declarations. The Court will regard their silence as an implied refusal of the Government’s offer.

(a) Joinder of the applications

49. In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court the Court decides that the above 130 applications should be joined.

(b) General applicable principles

50. The Court, in certain circumstances, 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; Facondis v. Cyprus, no. 9095/08, 27 May 2010; and Messana v. Italy, no. 26128/04, § 23, 9 February 2017).

51. The Court has already found that, in view of the amounts proposed by the Government in their unilateral declarations on the individual measures of redress, there have been no circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which would require the continued examination of the above 270 cases where a friendly settlement has been concluded. It has also been satisfied that, having regard to the general measures taken or to be taken in the future by the respondent Government, the settlement was based on “respect for human rights” as interpreted in the context of the pilot-judgment procedure (see paragraphs 37 and 45 above).

Since all the Government’s unilateral declarations are set in the identical terms, the same conclusions apply to the present cases.

52. As regards the 112 applicants’ arguments that particular circumstances of their cases call for significantly higher just-satisfaction awards and that, on that grounds, the Court should continue examination of their cases on the merits (see paragraph 48 above), the Court wishes to emphasise that it is an international judicial authority and that its principal task is to secure the respect for human rights, rather than compensate applicants’ losses minutely and exhaustively. Unlike in national jurisdictions, the emphasis of the Court’s activity is on passing public judgments that set human-rights standards across Europe.

For this reason, in cases involving, like the present ones, many similarly situated victims a unified approach is called for. This approach will ensure that the applicants remain aggregated and that no disparity in the level of the awards will have a divisive effect on the applicants (see, mutatis mutandis, Goncharova and other “Privileged Pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 23113/08 and 68 others, § 22, 15 October 2009; and Gaglione and Others v. Italy, nos. 45867/07 and 69 others, § 67, 21 December 2010).

(c) Conclusion

53. In view of the foregoing and having regard to its above findings as to the admissions and undertakings contained in the Government’s declaration, the Court decides that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

The Court considers that these amounts should be paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s present decision issued in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to settle within this period, simple interest shall be payable on the amounts in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points.

54. The Court further 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).

55. Accordingly, it is appropriate to strike the present 130 cases out of the Court’s list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the 270 applications listed in Annex I to this decision;

Decides to strike the above 270 applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Articles 37 § 1 (b) and 39 § 3 of the Convention;

Decides to join the 130 applications listed in Annex II to this decision;

Decides to strike the above 130 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 22 June 2017.

Renata DegenerLinos-Alexandre Sicilianos
Deputy RegistrarPresident

ANNEX I

LIST OF APPLICANTS WHO ACCEPTED THE GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSAL IN UNILATERAL DECLARATION

File no.

Case name

Date of lodging

Name of Representative

Address of Representative

Introduced by

Amount proposed in Unilateral declaration

1.

53491/10

Załuska v. Poland

16/08/2010

W. Wrzecionkowski

Pan Mecenas Wojciech Wrzecionkowski

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Warmińska 14/20

PL - 10-545 Olsztyn

J. Załuska

PLN 33,400

2.

34524/09

Baumert and Pastuszka v. Poland

19/06/2009

A. Kijak

Pan Mecenas Andrzej Kijak

Kancelaria Prawna

ul. Ks. Fr. Blachnickiego 3

PL - 41-219 Sosnowiec

B. Baumert

A. Pastuszka

PLN 34,800 to B. Baumert and PLN 32,900 to A. Pastuszka

3.

37778/09

Prużyński v. Poland

23/06/2009

K. Prużyński

PLN 6,240

4.

47807/09

Haberkiewicz v. Poland

26/08/2009

P. Haberkiewicz

PLN 5,890

5.

54417/09

Rynkiewicz v. Poland

16/06/2010

J. Rynkiewicz

PLN 12,300

6.

345/10

Dejewski v. Poland

17/09/2009

E. Dejewski

PLN 34,320

7.

16550/10

Holka-Łaski v. Poland

24/02/2010

P. Holka-Łaski

PLN 10,700

8.

21183/10

Szymik v. Poland

22/03/2010

L. Szymik

PLN 15,600

9.

23340/10

Kierzek v. Poland

16/04/2010

A. Kierzek

PLN 5,800

10.

28543/10

Nowacka v. Poland

10/05/2010

L. Nowacka

PLN 35,200

11.

30408/10

Tyczyński v. Poland

27/05/2010

S. Wrona

Pan Mecenas Stanisław Wrona

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Inowrocławska 21 D lok. nr 8

PL - 53-653 Wrocław

R. Tyczyński

PLN 9,360

12.

31177/10

Kupiec v. Poland

01/06/2010

S. Kupiec

PLN 24,500

13.

31212/10

Kompert v. Poland

01/06/2010

S. Załęcki

Pan Mecenas Sławomir Załęcki

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Kilińskiego 7

PL - 42200 Częstochowa

B. Kompert

PLN 39,900

14.

31271/10

Wyrzykowski v. Poland

01/05/2010

G. Wyrzykowski

PLN 32,400

15.

42339/10

Łozińska v. Poland

24/05/2010

S. Wrona

Pan Mecenas Stanisław Wrona

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Inowrocławska 21 D lok. nr 8

PL - 53-653 Wrocław

K. Łozińska

PLN 9,600

16.

50607/10

Domagała v. Poland

24/08/2010

J. Kasperczuk

Pan Mecenas Jerzy Kasperczuk

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Wałbrzyska 8

PL - 58-100 Świdnica

W. Domagała

PLN 31,200

17.

58144/10

Pukacz v. Poland

20/09/2010

D. Pukacz

PLN 3,900

18.

59547/10

Świerszcz v. Poland

04/10/2010

M. Świerszcz

PLN 8,920 for the first set of proceedings and PLN 5,800 for the second set of proceedings

19.

61580/10

Ziemiańczyk v. Poland

14/10/2010

J. Ziemiańczyk

PLN 37,300 for the first set of proceedings and PLN 34,400 for the second set of proceedings

20.

61643/10

Ciselski v. Poland

07/09/2010

L. Daszuta

Pan Mecenas Łukasz Daszuta

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Piwna 1/2

PL - 80-831 Gdańsk

P. Ciselski

PLN 10,000

21.

63282/10

Kwapiński v. Poland

17/10/2010

M. Kwapiński

PLN 26,000

22.

65111/10

Pamuła v. Poland

14/10/2010

M. Pieńkowska-Rutkowska

Pani Mecenas

Magdalena Pieńkowska-Rutkowska

ul. Kaszubska 8a / 3

PL - 80-318 Gdańsk

G. Pamuła

PLN 18,850

23.

67701/10

Cichoński v. Poland

08/11/2010

L. Cichoński

PLN 21,840

24.

67816/10

Jurewicz v. Poland

19/10/2010

M. Jurewicz

PLN 9,600

25.

70171/10

Pyrża v. Poland

02/11/2010

S. Pyrża

PLN 6,400

26.

72202/10

Olkowicz v. Poland

30/11/2010

P. Olkowicz

PLN 13,600

27.

73263/10

Skórzybót v. Poland

17/08/2010

S. Skórzybut

Mr Stanisław Skórzybut

Dorfstrasse 21

AUT - 2831 Hassbach

M. Skórzybót

PLN 3,900

28.

429/11

Matusik v. Poland

16/12/2010

K. Matusik

PLN 46,800

29.

654/11

Ciselski v. Poland

27/09/2010

L. Daszuta

Pan Mecenas Łukasz Daszuta

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Piwna 1/2

PL - 80-831 Gdańsk

P. Ciselski

PLN 27,000

30.

1033/11

Kiwak v. Poland

16/12/2010

M. Kiwak

PLN 15,440

31.

1740/11

Dobruk v. Poland

23/12/2010

D. Dobruk

PLN 10,920

32.

2361/11

Śpiewak v. Poland

07/01/2011

A. Śpiewak

PLN 12,100

33.

2911/11

Kurcoń v. Poland

17/12/2010

J. Kurcoń

PLN 12,500

34.

3455/11

Lech v. Poland

04/01/2011

H. Lech

PLN 12,480

35.

4155/11

Bogucki v. Poland

14/12/2010

T. Bogucki

PLN 9,600

36.

4161/11

Butelski v. Poland

03/01/2011

K. Butelski

PLN 38,500

37.

5148/11

Chmielewski v. Poland

04/01/2011

W. Grzelak

Pan Mecenas Witold Grzelak

Indywidualna Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Krótka 3/1

PL - 44-100 Gliwice

K. Chmielewski

PLN 21,840 for the first set of proceedings and PLN 18,720 for the second set of proceedings

38.

5611/11

Stączek v. Poland

20/01/2011

A. Stączek

PLN 12,480

39.

6689/11

Sadowski v. Poland

14/01/2011

M. Sadowski

PLN 39,300

40.

7337/11

Przyk v. Poland

26/01/2011

J. Przyk

PLN 14,196

41.

7910/11

Modzelewski v. Poland

24/01/2011

N. Modzelewski

PLN 6,190

42.

9178/11

Mańkowski v. Poland

27/01/2011

K. Mańkowski

PLN 40,560

43.

11968/11

Fendryk v. Poland

15/02/2011

G. Fendryk

PLN 12,480

44.

12217/11

Witecki v. Poland

14/02/2011

D. Witecki

PLN 5,460

45.

12570/11

Jasiński v. Poland

18/02/2011

M. Jasiński

PLN 12,480

46.

13025/11

Dydek v. Poland

11/02/2011

R. Dydek

PLN 12,480

47.

15110/11

Matuszewski v. Poland

28/02/2011

R. Matuszewski

PLN 9,360

48.

15497/11

Stenka v. Poland

10/02/2011

M. Pieńkowska-Rutkowska

Pani Mecenas

Magdalena Pieńkowska-Rutkowska

ul. Kaszubska 8a / 3

PL - 80-318 Gdańsk

Z. Stenka

PLN 10,480

49.

16094/11

Dugiełło v. Poland

23/02/2011

D. Dugiełło

PLN 2,880

50.

16205/11

Dzitkowski v. Poland

15/02/2011

L. Daszuta

Pan Mecenas Łukasz Daszuta

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Piwna 1/2

PL - 80-831 Gdańsk

Z. Dzitkowski

PLN 21,170

51.

16305/11

Kamińska v. Poland

07/03/2011

J. Kamińska

PLN 37,300 for the first set of proceedings and PLN 34,400 for the second set of proceedings

52.

16616/11

Franiewski v. Poland

07/03/2011

R. Franiewski

PLN 25,940

53.

18738/11

Karp v. Poland

15/03/2011

J. Karp

PLN 15,670

54.

19288/11

Sikora v. Poland

09/03/2011

P. Sikora

PLN 4,230

55.

22324/11

Jaskółkowski v. Poland

25/03/2011

W. Szewczyk

Pan Mecenas Wiktor Szewczyk

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Gen. Władysława Andersa 7/2

PL - 81-831 Sopot

G. Jaskółkowski

PLN 15,600

56.

22446/11

Rekowska v. Poland

28/03/2011

L. Rekowska

PLN 36,300

57.

22846/11

Pietrzykowski v. Poland

20/01/2011

Z. Pietrzykowski

PLN 11,860

58.

23020/11

Grzegorzewski v. Poland

27/03/2011

D. Grzegorzewski

PLN 16,150

59.

23329/11

Piątek v. Poland

20/01/2011

P. Piątek

PLN 12,360

60.

24576/11

Zając v. Poland

17/11/2011

H. Majcherkiewicz

Pani Helena Majcherkiewicz

Osiedle. Albertyńskie 28/1

PL - 31854 Kraków

L. Zając

PLN 22,200

61.

25841/11

Lorents v. Poland

11/04/2011

B. Lorents

PLN 22,380

62.

28009/11

Kamiński v. Poland

05/04/2011

S. Kamiński

PLN 36,500

63.

28027/11

Kamowski v. Poland

10/04/2011

R. Kamowski

PLN 15,600

64.

28983/11

Konas v. Poland

20/04/2011

J. Konas

PLN 10,600

65.

29363/11

Hołownia v. Poland

27/04/2011

B. Hołownia

PLN 4,240

66.

29600/11

Głowaty v. Poland

28/04/2011

P. Głowaty

PLN 27,800

67.

31522/11

Palka v. Poland

09/05/2011

M. Palka

PLN 17,780

68.

31524/11

Palka v. Poland

09/05/2011

M. Palka

PLN 8,650

69.

32417/11

Żyrek v. Poland

10/01/2011

K. Żyrek

PLN 8,330 for the first set of proceedings and PLN 9,720 for the second set of proceedings

70.

34227/11

Kaczmarek v. Poland

09/05/2011

R. Kaczmarek

PLN 9,270

71.

34497/11

Pawłowski v. Poland

25/05/2011

M. Sykulska-Przybysz

Pani Mecenas

Magdalena Sykulska-Przybysz

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Kościuszki 8

PL - 83-110 Tczew

M. Pawłowski

PLN 40,560

72.

35251/11

Stan v. Poland

24/05/2011

R. Stan

PLN 17,780 for the first set of proceedings and PLN 17,780 for the second set of proceedings

73.

35985/11

Misztalski v. Poland

20/05/2011

P. Misztalski

PLN 10,830

74.

36183/11

Cichoński v. Poland

20/05/2011

L. Cichoński

PLN 28,190

75.

37129/11

Marcinkowski v. Poland

06/06/2011

J. Marcinkowski

PLN 7,090

76.

37418/11

Stankiewicz v. Poland

06/06/2011

A. Stankiewicz

PLN 40,560

77.

37508/11

Buszydlik v. Poland

06/06/2011

J. Buszydlik

PLN 10,764

78.

38103/11

Szczodrowski v. Poland

15/06/2011

R. Szczodrowski

PLN 12,470

79.

38869/11

Grabara v. Poland

10/06/2011

J. Grabara

PLN 9,690

80.

38877/11

Rakowski v. Poland

06/06/2011

K. Ways

Pan Mecenas Krzysztof Ways

Kancelaria Adwokacka

BWHS Bartkowiak Wojciechowski Hałupczak Springer sp.j.

ul. Mińska 25

PL - 03-808 Warszawa

R. Rakowski

PLN 14,725

81.

38893/11

Rykalski v. Poland

05/05/2011

P. Rykalski

PLN 20,090

82.

40826/11

Klimczyk v. Poland

22/06/2011

K. Klimczyk

PLN 24,435

83.

42378/11

Mikołajczak v. Poland

06/07/2011

G. Mikołajczak

PLN 16,150

84.

45127/11

Kucharski v. Poland

13/07/2011

K. Kucharski

PLN 41,210

85.

45802/11

Antczak v. Poland

24/06/2011

S. Antczak

PLN 11,980

86.

45995/11

Wawrzkiewicz v. Poland

11/07/2011

P. Wawrzkiewicz

PLN 4,500

87.

46059/11

Meska v. Poland

21/07/2011

J. Meska

PLN 4,240

88.

48752/11

Leksztoń v. Poland

28/07/2011

J. Leksztoń

PLN 46,320

89.

50009/11

Portuś v. Poland

03/08/2011

T. Portuś

PLN 28,245

90.

50725/11

Sokołowski v. Poland

01/08/2011

T. Sokołowski

PLN 26,200

91.

53182/11

Sadowska v. Poland

12/08/2011

N. Sadowska

PLN 39,300

92.

54543/11

Cygan v. Poland

19/08/2011

R. Cygan

PLN 13,980

93.

55215/11

Drabik v. Poland

09/08/2011

D. Drabik

PLN 4,000

94.

56798/11

Szustak v. Poland

26/06/2011

J. Szustak

PLN 10,810

95.

57527/11

Kosmulski v. Poland

04/09/2011

D. Kosmulski

PLN 11,120

96.

58010/11

Karliński v. Poland

04/08/2011

J. Karliński

PLN 6,240

97.

58618/11

Witmajer v. Poland

30/08/2011

A. Witmajer

PLN 16,220

98.

59404/11

Kościński v. Poland

05/09/2011

R. Kościński

PLN 43,210

99.

60280/11

Zalewski v. Poland

13/09/2011

A. Zalewski

PLN 29,330 for the first set of proceedings and PLN 9,690 for the second set of proceedings

100.

60542/11

Załęgowski v. Poland

12/04/2011

J. Załęgowski

PLN 7,570

101.

60641/11

Mamaj v. Poland

22/09/2011

A. Mamaj

PLN 8,580

102.

62008/11

Rejnert v. Poland

27/09/2011

M. Rejnert

PLN 5,680

103.

62092/11

Zdunek v. Poland

21/09/2011

R. Zdunek

PLN 15,660

104.

63767/11

Wyrzykowski v. Poland

29/09/2011

T. Wyrzykowski

PLN 4,040

105.

64947/11

Topij v. Poland

30/09/2011

A. Topij

PLN 9,690

106.

65636/11

Waniewski v. Poland

06/10/2011

R. Waniewski

PLN 10,480

107.

65933/11

Petrolex SP. Z O.O. v. Poland

12/10/2011

K. Falkiewicz

Pan Mecenas Krzysztof Falkiewicz

Kancelaria Radcy Prawnego

ul. Dworkowa 3

PL - 00-784 Warszawa

Petrolex

SP. Z O.O.

PLN 40,150

108.

70397/11

Jarosz v. Poland

09/11/2011

A. Kasperkiewicz

Pan Mecenas Adam Kasperkiewicz

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Dąbrowskiego 15 lok. 13

PL - 42-200 Częstochowa

W. Jarosz

PLN 26,970

109.

71771/11

Piotrowski v. Poland

13/10/2011

C. Piotrowski

PLN 7,800

110.

72621/11

Dumiński v. Poland

25/10/2011

A. Dumiński

PLN 6,400

111.

72829/11

Siwulski v. Poland

16/11/2011

P. Żyłka

Pan Mecenas Piotr Żyłka

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Dr. Pieniężnego 27 B

PL – 65-054 Zielona Góra

R. Siwulski

PLN 24,960

112.

74048/11

Samoraj v. Poland

21/11/2011

T. Samoraj

PLN 13,850

113.

74913/11

Stykowski v. Poland

21/11/2011

Z. Stykowski

PLN 29,200

114.

75722/11

Sikora v. Poland

22/11/2011

S. Sikora

PLN 4,300

115.

76937/11

Skorubski v. Poland

08/12/2011

S. Skorubski

PLN 17,690

116.

78373/11

Sitkowski v. Poland

12/12/2011

A. Sitkowski

PLN 9,360

117.

1216/12

Okuniewicz v. Poland

14/12/2011

T. Okuniewicz

PLN 27,080

118.

6019/12

Arłamowski v. Poland

19/01/2012

M .Arłamowski

PLN 33,400

119.

6023/12

Gałuszka v. Poland

12/01/2012

Z. Gałuszka

PLN 41,680

120.

6026/12

Kucharski v. Poland

16/01/2012

K. Kucharski

PLN 14,370

121.

6046/12

Skowroński v. Poland

03/01/2012

G. Skowroński

PLN 5,990

122.

7274/12

Mleczak v. Poland

17/01/2012

S. Ciesielski

Pan Mecenas Sławomir Ciesielski

Kancelaria Adwokatów i Radców Prawnych

Pl. Wolności 9/5a III p.

PL - 61-738 Poznań

M. Mleczak

PLN 26,790

123.

7643/12

Frączek v. Poland

18/01/2012

T. Frączek

PLN 9,360

124.

9009/12

Budziszewski v. Poland

04/01/2012

S. Budziszewski

PLN 5,800

125.

9727/12

Majewski v. Poland

30/01/2012

M. Majewska

Pani Monika Majewska

ul. Narbutta 42 m 1/2

PL - 00-873 Warszawa

M. Majewski

PLN 12,480

126.

10759/12

Klupś v. Poland

30/01/2012

T. Klupś

PLN 9,360

127.

11926/12

Trela v. Poland

13/02/2012

J. Trela

PLN 10,600

128.

12202/12

Piątkowski v. Poland

17/02/2012

B. Piątkowski

PLN 23,580

129.

12575/12

Czerniak v. Poland

23/01/2012

P. Czerniak

PLN 6,240

130.

16045/12

Jasik v. Poland

12/03/2012

M. Jasik

PLN 24,960

131.

16751/12

Grzelak v. Poland

12/03/2012

K. Grzelak

PLN 12,600

132.

19053/12

Erchard v. Poland

08/03/2012

M. Erchard

PLN 6,910

133.

23418/12

Nowak v. Poland

02/04/2012

A. Kijak

Pan Mecenas Andrzej Kijak

Kancelaria Prawna

ul. Ks. Fr. Blachnickiego 3

PL - 41-219 Sosnowiec

E. Nowak

PLN 32,450

134.

23566/12

Mielcarz v. Poland

02/04/2012

W. Mielcarz

PLN 5,960

135.

24894/12

Giszczak v. Poland

11/04/2012

G. Giszczak

PLN 13,600

136.

26122/12

Marczyńska v. Poland

24/04/2012

A. Marczyńska

PLN 20,340

137.

27325/12

Sobala v. Poland

18/04/2012

N. Sobala

PLN 12,480

138.

27438/12

Jura v. Poland

23/04/2012

R. Jura

PLN 12,640

139.

28123/12

Natkański v. Poland

23/03/2012

M. Natkański

PLN 2,315

140.

29470/12

Gazda v. Poland

08/05/2012

A. Gazda

PLN 7,920

141.

30753/12

Towpik v. Poland

16/05/2012

K. Towpik

PLN 33,980

142.

31847/12

Soczko v. Poland

17/05/2012

W. Soczko

PLN 6,360

143.

33360/12

Bogusz v. Poland

28/05/2012

M. Bogusz

PLN 10,480

144.

33405/12

Bylina v. Poland

17/05/2012

Ł. Bylina

PLN 14,290

145.

34518/12

Kieczka v. Poland

14/11/2011

S. Kieczka

PLN 6,240

146.

34577/12

Choba v. Poland

25/05/2012

T. Choba

PLN 40,560

147.

34660/12

Wójcik v. Poland

19/03/2012

S. Wójcik

PLN 5,800

148.

35613/12

Krzepkowski v. Poland

14/05/2012

K. Krzepkowski

PLN 4,450

149.

36519/12

Ulinowicz v. Poland

12/06/2012

D. Ulinowicz

H. Ulinowicz

PLN 30,600 to D. Ulinowicz and PLN 30,600 to H. Ulinowicz

150.

36741/12

Pieszczyńska v. Poland

12/06/2012

M. Pieszczyńska

PLN 46,300

151.

36846/12

Mucha v. Poland

12/06/2012

M. Mucha

PLN 46,300

152.

37873/12

Gasiński v. Poland

08/06/2012

A. Gasiński

PLN 34,730

153.

38711/12

Gniado v. Poland

08/06/2012

G. Gniado

PLN 10,170

154.

41318/12

Wróblewski v. Poland

13/06/2012

A. Wróblewski

PLN 3,860

155.

41368/12

Mucha v. Poland

19/06/2012

E. Mucha

PLN 46,300

156.

41393/12

Bracka v. Poland

18/06/2012

T. Bracka

PLN 12,360 for the first set of proceedings and PLN 5,800 for the second set of proceedings

157.

41461/12

Górska v. Poland

19/06/2012

E. Górska

PLN 9,480

158.

41542/12

Bracka v. Poland

18/06/2012

R. Bracka

PLN 12,920 for the first set of proceedings, PLN 19,380 for the second set of proceedings and PLN 7,220 for the third set of proceedings

159.

43018/12

Gudalewicz v. Poland

05/07/2012

I. Gudalewicz

PLN 27,280

160.

43720/12

Bujakowski v. Poland

02/07/2012

J. Bujakowski

PLN 30,290

161.

44661/12

Kufel v. Poland

11/07/2012

E. Kufel

PLN 6,300

162.

44737/12

Kaczmarek v. Poland

02/07/2012

T. Kaczmarek

PLN 18,240

163.

46318/12

Kaczmarek v. Poland

02/07/2012

T. Kaczmarek

PLN 9,690

164.

46359/12

Hobot v. Poland

20/07/2012

T. Hobot

PLN 12,690

165.

47369/12

Małaczewski v. Poland

17/07/2012

M. Małaczewski

PLN 14,960

166.

52831/12

Bielawiak v. Poland

09/08/2012

J. Bielawiak

PLN 14,980

167.

54047/12

Mieszkowski v. Poland

06/08/2012

J. Mieszkowski

PLN 26,010

168.

54166/12

Bojanowicz v. Poland

17/08/2012

M. Pelc

Pani Mecenas Martyna Pelc

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Drzymały 4/4

PL - 40-059 Katowice

M. Bojanowicz

PLN 3,900

169.

54182/12

Meroń v. Poland

09/08/2012

M. Meroń

PLN 20,600

170.

55271/12

Więckowska v. Poland

21/08/2012

E. Więckowska

PLN 31,450

171.

55342/12

Jagieła v. Poland

20/08/2012

Z. Jagieła

PLN 29,710

172.

55824/12

Przyjemski v. Poland

16/08/2012

P. Przyjemski

PLN 6,240 for the first set of proceedings and PLN 7,800 for the second set of proceedings

173.

56068/12

Todorski v. Poland

30/07/2012

R. Todorski

PLN 4,240

174.

56868/12

Przybylak v. Poland

27/08/2012

R. Przybylak

PLN 10,380

175.

58610/12

Paszkowski v. Poland

27/08/2012

P. Paszkowski

PLN 7,570

176.

66980/12

Mikiewicz v. Poland

16/10/2012

J. Budzowska

Pani Mecenas Jolanta Budzowska

Budzowska, Fiutowski i Partnerzy

Radcowie Prawni

ul. Sienna 11/1

PL - 31-041 Kraków

Z. Mikiewicz

PLN 9,360

177.

68218/12

Kalbarczyk v. Poland

12/10/2012

R. Kalbarczyk

PLN 10,375

178.

68534/12

Buksa-Klinowska v. Poland

19/10/2012

E. Buksa-Klinowska

PLN 12,480

179.

75104/12

Gałuszka v. Poland

24/10/2012

Z. Gałuszka

PLN 24,470

180.

75458/12

Kosmala v. Poland

16/11/2012

T. Gasiński

Pan Mecenas Tomasz Gasiński

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Tymienieckiego 25 C / 288

PL - 90-350 Łódź

P. Kosmala

PLN 25,560

181.

75724/12

Irczyńska v. Poland

16/11/2012

T. Gasiński

Pan Mecenas Tomasz Gasiński

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Tymienieckiego 25 C / 288

PL - 90-350 Łódź

E. Irczyńska

PLN 25,560

182.

75862/12

Puchalski v. Poland

16/11/2012

T. Gasiński

Pan Mecenas Tomasz Gasiński

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Tymienieckiego 25 C / 288

PL - 90-350 Łódź

S. Puchalski

PLN 25,560

183.

75870/12

Walczak v. Poland

16/11/2012

T. Gasiński

Pan Mecenas Tomasz Gasiński

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Tymienieckiego 25 C / 288

PL - 90-350 Łódź

R. Walczak

PLN 25,300

184.

75908/12

Rotnicki v. Poland

06/11/2012

J. Rotnicki

PLN 19,420

185.

76318/12

Carrozzo v. Poland

20/11/2012

M. Carrozzo

PLN 20,560

186.

77946/12

Żłobiński v. Poland

22/11/2012

M. Konieczynski

Pan Mecenas Michał Konieczyński

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Kopernika 13/5

PL – 40-064 Katowice

R. Żłobiński

PLN 20,450

187.

80456/12

Todorski v. Poland

05/12/2012

R. Todorski

PLN 6,600

188.

2096/13

Banaszkowski v. Poland

10/12/2012

P. Banaszkowski

PLN 4,080

189.

3164/13

Wójciak v. Poland

16/12/2012

M. Wójciak

PLN 9,115

190.

3524/13

Kaczmarek v. Poland

21/12/2012

T. Kaczmarek

PLN 15,600

191.

3597/13

Ściborowski v. Poland

11/12/2012

K. Ściborowski

PLN 7,380

192.

5088/13

Lipiec v. Poland

31/12/2012

K. Lipiec

PLN 5,250

193.

8282/13

Musiał v. Poland

09/01/2013

S. Musiał

PLN 15,600

194.

8969/13

Cukierski v. Poland

07/01/2013

A. Cukierski

PLN 9,270

195.

10522/13

Bałaklejewski v. Poland

21/01/2013

P. Bałaklejewski

PLN 10,100

196.

12655/13

Tomkiewicz v. Poland

04/02/2013

G. Tomkiewicz

PLN 7,660

197.

15626/13

Maksym v. Poland

04/02/2013

M. Maksym

PLN 39,820

198.

15972/13

Trybek v. Poland

19/02/2013

A. Trybek

PLN 16,080

199.

16390/13

Pyrzanowski-Kluczyński v. Poland

20/02/2013

A. Pyrzanowski-Kluczyński

PLN 13,080

200.

17574/13

Nowak v. Poland

25/02/2013

M. Nowak

PLN 29,180

201.

17969/13

Smyk v. Poland

19/02/2013

W. Smyk

PLN 16,550

202.

18241/13

Lipski v. Poland

05/03/2013

A. Lipski

PLN 6,780

203.

18476/13

Winer v. Poland

04/03/2013

J. Winer

PLN 37,440

204.

18596/13

Wiktorski v. Poland

08/03/2013

R. Wiktorski

PLN 25,080

205.

18715/13

Gasiński v. Poland

28/02/2013

B. Gasiński

PLN 10,480

206.

20584/13

Szczodrowski v. Poland

31/12/2012

R. Szczodrowski

PLN 9,600

207.

23884/13

Meroń v. Poland

12/03/2013

M. Meroń

PLN 12,636

208.

28927/13

Błaszczak v. Poland

17/04/2013

D. Błaszczak

PLN 5,740

209.

30963/13

Adaszewski v. Poland

30/04/2013

W. Adaszewski

PLN 10,480

210.

32281/13

Górski v. Poland

28/04/2013

R. Górski

PLN 7,315

211.

33344/13

Andrasik v. Poland

07/05/2013

L. Andrasik

PLN 9,360

212.

33470/13

Stołkowski v. Poland

23/04/2013

M. Stołkowski

PLN 9,360

213.

33531/13

Strusiński v. Poland

10/05/2013

J. Strusiński

PLN 7,410

214.

33545/13

Szymecki v. Poland

18/05/2013

Z. Szymecki

PLN 12,480

215.

33559/13

Szafrańska v. Poland

13/05/2013

J. Budzowska

Pani Mecenas Jolanta Budzowska

Budzowska, Fiutowski i Partnerzy

Radcowie Prawni

ul. Sienna 11/1

PL - 31-041 Kraków

J. Szafrańska

PLN 18,720

216.

34505/13

Kostrzewa v. Poland

21/05/2013

K. Kostrzewa

PLN 15,290

217.

35076/13

Tyzo v. Poland

13/05/2013

P. Tyzo

PLN 6,240

218.

37179/13

Olędzki v. Poland

27/05/2013

J. Stachura

Pan Mecenas Jakub Stachura

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Wałowa 4 lok. U3

PL - 26-600 Radom

J. Olędzki

PLN 15,440

219.

37476/13

Wasyl v. Poland

29/05/2013

M. Puchalski

Pan Mecenas Michał Puchalski

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. 10 Lutego 29/2

PL - 81-364 Gdynia

P. Wasyl

PLN 28,080

220.

38784/13

Piechula-Folek v. Poland

11/05/2013

D. Piechula-Folek

PLN 4,630

221.

41159/13

Kasprzak v. Poland

13/06/2013

R. Kasprzak

PLN 9,360

222.

43103/13

Chodysz v. Poland

20/06/2013

P. Szeja

Pan Mecenas Piotr Szeja

Kancelaria Prawnicza

Szeja i Wspólnicy Sp. K.

ul. Pańska 73/109

PL - 00-834 Warszawa

H. Chodysz

PLN 9,600

223.

45326/13

Winiarski v. Poland

02/07/2013

W. Winiarski

PLN 27,690

224.

45556/13

Górski v. Poland

18/06/2013

J. Potulski

Pan Mecenas Jacek Potulski

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Śląska 21

PL – 81 319 Gdynia

W. Górski

PLN 32,670

225.

46109/13

Śledź v. Poland

16/04/2013

H. Śledź

PLN 9,660

226.

46704/13

Galewski v. Poland

15/07/2013

Z. Galewski

PLN 12,150

227.

47164/13

Ziarek v. Poland

08/07/2013

D. Ziarek

PLN 9,500

228.

48248/13

Koczyk v. Poland

18/07/2013

A. Pietryka

Pan Mecenas Artur Pietryka

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Opoczyńska 2a/2

PL - 02-526 Warszawa

P. Koczyk

PLN 9,180

229.

49269/13

Kos v. Poland

24/07/2013

M. Mazur

Pan Mec. Marcin Mazur

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Krucza 46 lok. 75

PL 00-509 Warszawa

M. Kos

PLN 12,900

230.

49276/13

Kowalski v. Poland

24/07/2013

P. Kowalski

PLN 7,960

231.

49629/13

Fryc v. Poland

24/07/2013

M. Fryc

PLN 12,580

232.

51688/13

Sokołowski v. Poland

05/08/2013

G. Sokołowski

PLN 14,050

233.

55113/13

Bieniek v. Poland

14/08/2013

K. Bieniek

PLN 8,040

234.

55181/13

Lisowski v. Poland

06/08/2013

E. Lisowski

PLN 24,340

235.

57675/13

Bartnicki v. Poland

19/08/2013

T. Bartnicki

PLN 8,040

236.

61099/13

Patelski v. Poland

09/09/2013

A. Patelski

PLN 9,710

237.

67118/13

Sawicki v. Poland

14/10/2013

A. Sawicki

PLN 9,360

238.

68740/13

Wojna v. Poland

13/10/2013

P. Wojna

PLN 9,660

239.

68777/13

Wasylkowski v. Poland

13/03/2013

M. Wasylkowski

PLN 17,320

240.

71173/13

Czarnecki v. Poland

31/10/2013

P. Czarnecki

PLN 6,100

241.

73568/13

Kubiak v. Poland

02/09/2013

M. Kubiak

PLN 21,840

242.

77642/13

Maczan and Others v. Poland

24/11/2013

A. Brzozowski

Pan Mecenas Andrzej Brzozowski

Kancelaria Adwokacka TOGA

ul. Wyzwolenia 32/2

PL - 10-106 Olsztyn

K. Maczan

I. Maczan

D. Nebeś

W. Nebeś

PLN 6,410 to K. Maczan,

PLN 6,410 to

W. Nebeś,

PLN 6,410 to

D. Nebeś, and

PLN 6,410 to

I. Maczan

243.

78866/13

Zosiuk v. Poland

29/11/2013

G. Zosiuk

PLN 12,790

244.

79322/13

Marszałkowski v. Poland

19/11/2013

M. Marszałkowski

PLN 7,400

245.

79960/13

Stępień v. Poland

03/12/2013

M. Stępień

PLN 22,730

246.

1562/14

Dolecki v. Poland

10/12/2013

T. Dolecki

PLN 7,360

247.

2141/14

Zawistowski v. Poland

20/12/2013

K. Wysiadecka

Pani Mecenas Katarzyna Wysiadecka

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Nadarzyńska 14 lok. 5

PL - 05-500 Piaseczno

A. Zawistowski

PLN 13,600

248.

4967/14

Bacza v. Poland

16/12/2013

M. Bacza

PLN 18,720

249.

4980/14

Bacza v. Poland

08/01/2014

M. Bacza

PLN 45,400

250.

8080/14

Pastoła v. Poland

25/03/2014

M. Pastoła

PLN 7,410

251.

8679/14

Żelasko v. Poland

27/06/2014

D. Żelasko

PLN 6,240

252.

11208/14

Dwernicka v. Poland

27/01/2014

P. Roczkowski

Pan Mecenas Piotr Roczkowski

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Starowiejska 25/6

PL - 81-363 Gdynia

P. Dwernicka

PLN 35,760

253.

12065/14

Feit v. Poland

31/01/2014

M. Feit

PLN 15,600

254.

17666/14

Madej v. Poland

17/02/2014

K. Wysiadecka

Pani Mecenas Katarzyna Wysiadecka

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Nadarzyńska 14 lok. 5

PL - 05-500 Piaseczno

J. Madej

PLN 39,800

255.

20713/14

Kowalczyk v. Poland

03/01/2014

G. Kowalczyk

PLN 8,900

256.

23610/14

Wieczorkiewicz v. Poland

18/03/2014

E. Wieczorkiewicz

PLN 7,480

257.

23951/14

Ficek v. Poland

05/03/2014

K. Ficek

PLN 7,690

258.

36398/14

Wakulińska v. Poland

02/05/2014

B. Wakulińska

PLN 19,840

259.

37001/14

Żakowski v. Poland

29/04/2014

K. Jasińska

Pani Mecenas Katarzyna Jasińska

Kancelaria Prawna

ul. Żółtej Ciżemki 3/4

PL – 31-560 Kraków

J. Żakowski

PLN 10,920

260.

39661/14

Kozioł v. Poland

16/06/2014

D. Kozioł

PLN 5,800

261.

55434/14

Przedsiębiorstwo Budowlane ‘Górski’ SP. Z O.O. v. Poland

25/07/2014

Przedsiębiorstwo Budowlane ‘Górski’ SP. Z O.O.

PLN 2,800

262.

65755/14

Łukomski v. Poland

21/11/2014

T. Łukomski

PLN 18,720

263.

68609/14

Kaźmierowska v. Poland

16/10/2014

J. Kaźmierowska

PLN 23,960

264.

72334/14

Rzepiński v. Poland

22/10/2014

D. Rzepiński

PLN 19,380 for the first set of proceedings and PLN 5,825 for the second set of proceedings

265.

75438/14

Lidwin v. Poland

23/01/2015

R. Lidwin

PLN 26,980

266.

76575/14

Krupski v. Poland

29/11/2014

G. Krupski

PLN 8,100

267.

78676/14

Mika v. Poland

16/12/2014

K. Mika

PLN 52,730

268.

13841/15

Birecki v. Poland

04/03/2015

B. Birecki

PLN 6,410

269.

14634/15

Moszczyński and Gawlik-Moszczyńska v. Poland

16/03/2015

M. Moszczyński

T.Gawlik-Moszczyńska

PLN 12,900 to

M. Moszczyński

and PLN 12,900 to T. Gawlik-Moszczyńska

270.

17315/15

Sulik v. Poland

01/04/2015

E. Sulik

PLN 10,140

ANNEX II

LIST OF APPLICANTS WHO REJECTED THE GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSAL IN UNILATERAL DECLARATION

File no.

Case name

Date of lodging

Name of Representative

Address of Representative

Introduced by

Amount proposed in Unilateral declaration

1.  

72286/10

Rogalska v. Poland

01/12/2010

M. Rogalska

PLN 15,600

2.

12452/08

Bury v. Poland

04/03/2008

K. Bury

PLN 2,270

3.

33010/09

Herman v. Poland

15/06/2009

B. Tsakaridis-Herman

Pani Beata Tsakaridis-Herman

ul. Kukułcza 3

PL - 66-008 Wilkanowo

M. Herman

PLN 26,700

4.

45807/09

Kujawa v. Poland

17/08/2009

A. Kujawa

PLN 19,180

5.

53621/09

Karaban-Awdziejczyk v. Poland

02/10/2009

A. Karaban-Awdziejczyk

PLN 7,410

6.

54487/09

Karaban v. Poland

08/10/2009

J. Karaban

PLN 8,890

7.

58867/09

Nowak v. Poland

31/10/2009

R. Nowak

PLN 8,890

8.

19467/10

Osiadacz v. Poland

15/03/2010

K. Osiadacz

PLN 19,000 for the first set of proceedings and PLN 33,600 for the second set of proceedings

9.

20984/10

Kaczmarczyk v. Poland

12/04/2010

D. Cupial

Pan Mecenas Dawid Cupiał

Kancelaria Adwokacka

Al. Solidarności 113 lok. 23

PL - 00-140 Warszawa

D. Kaczmarczyk

PLN 4,040

10.

31277/10

Winnicki v. Poland

04/06/2010

P. Winnicki

PLN 9,800

11.

50517/10

Popławski v. Poland

19/08/2010

J. Popławski

PLN 9,600

12.

51370/10

Kwiatkowski v. Poland

23/08/2010

I. Kwiatkowski

PLN 28,750.40

13.

56649/10

Makulski v. Poland

30/08/2010

B. Makulski

PLN 10,920

14.

57696/10

Kotlarski v. Poland

28/09/2010

D. Ziaja

Pan Mecenas Dominik Ziaja

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Grunwaldzka 29/2

PL - 43300 Bielsko-Biała

M. Kotlarski

PLN 31,200

15.

57897/10

Chabowski v. Poland

15/09/2010

L. Daszuta

Pan Mecenas Łukasz Daszuta

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Piwna 1/2

PL - 80-831 Gdańsk

S. Chabowski

PLN 27,000

Applicant did not reply

16.

66948/10

Manikowski v. Poland

28/10/2010

M. Manikowski

PLN 7,800

Applicant did not reply

17.

70900/10

Nowak v. Poland

14/10/2010

L. Nowak

PLN 8,800

18.

72103/10

Walczak v. Poland

01/12/2010

I. Zirk-Sadowska

Pani Mecenas Irena Zirk‑Sadowska

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Liściasta 11 c

PL - 91-357 Łódź

M. Walczak

PLN 9,360

Applicant did not reply

19.

75/11

Chabowski v. Poland

16/09/2010

L. Daszuta

Pan Mecenas Łukasz Daszuta

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Piwna 1/2

PL - 80-831 Gdańsk

S. Chabowski

PLN 15,600

Applicant did not reply

20.

4058/11

Miłoń v. Poland

02/12/2010

K. Miłoń

PLN 40,200

21.

4165/11

Bachanowicz v. Poland

30/12/2010

L. Daszuta

Pan Mecenas Łukasz Daszuta

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Piwna 1/2

PL - 80-831 Gdańsk

E. Bachanowicz

PLN 44,930

Applicant did not reply

22.

6428/11

Cicha-Gnyp v. Poland

12/01/2011

H. Cicha-Gnyp

PLN 32,400

23.

10008/11

Sadowski v. Poland

04/02/2011

L. Sadowski

PLN 11,340

24.

11829/11

Eberchard v. Poland

15/02/2011

D. Eberchard

PLN 11,840

25.

12032/11

Bronsart v. Poland

08/02/2011

W. Bronsart

PLN 7,800

Applicant did not reply

26.

13614/11

Dąbrowski v. Poland

22/02/2011

T. Dąbrowski

PLN 19,600

27.

16220/11

Stanclik v. Poland

15/02/2011

A. Stanclik

PLN 31,320

28.

17326/11

Kubiak v. Poland

09/02/2011

T. Kubiak

PLN 6,240

29.

18958/11

Pawlukowski v. Poland

18/03/2011

R. Pawlukowski

PLN 15,985

Applicant did not reply

30.

20258/11

Kwiecińska v. Poland

18/03/2011

M. Kwiecińska

PLN 28,770

31.

22414/11

Kocot v. Poland

29/03/2011

B. Sułkowski

Pan Mecenas Bartosz Sułkowski

Kancelaria Radcy Prawnego

ul. Józefczaka 1

PL - 41902 Bytom

A. Kocot

PLN 33,400

32.

31774/11

Wróblewski v. Poland

28/04/2011

A. Wróblewski

PLN 4,200

33.

32260/11

Jarosz-Czapnik v. Poland

21/05/2011

J. Jarosz

Pan Jan Jarosz

ul. Smyczkowa 4/174

PL - 20844 Lublin

J. Jarosz-Czapnik

PLN 14,200

34.

33189/11

Kamiński v. Poland

16/05/2011

R. Kamiński

PLN 12,150

35.

33323/11

Skurat v. Poland

18/05/2011

E. Skurat

PLN 2,815

36.

35262/11

Wróblewski v. Poland

23/05/2011

J. Wróblewski

PLN 9,360

Applicant did not reply

37.

37604/11

Śliwa v. Poland

23/05/2011

A. Śliwa

PLN 37,440

38.

43487/11

Cytrynowicz v. Poland

11/07/2011

M. Pietrzak

Pan Mecenas Mikołaj Pietrzak

Kancelaria Pietrzak Sidor i Wspólnicy Sp. J.

ul. Sandomierska 8 lok. 5

PL - 02-567 Warszawa

A. Cytrynowicz

PLN 41,980

39.

44447/11

Mazur v. Poland

11/07/2011

M. Pietrzak

Pan Mecenas Mikołaj Pietrzak

Kancelaria Pietrzak Sidor i Wspólnicy Sp. J.

ul. Sandomierska 8 lok. 5

PL - 02-567 Warszawa

K. Mazur

PLN 41,980

40.

47871/11

Żwawczyk v. Poland

22/07/2011

D. Żwawczyk

PLN 12,270 for the first set of proceedings, PLN 18,410 for the second set of proceedings and PLN 18,410 for the third set of proceedings

41.

55221/11

Załuski v. Poland

11/08/2011

J. Załuski

PLN 15,380

Applicant did not reply

42.

55308/11

Jachnik v. Poland

16/08/2011

J. Jachnik

PLN 15,440

43.

57013/11

Jarmuż v. Poland

22/08/2011

M. Jarmuż

PLN 16,150

44.

63353/11

Kuchnicki v. Poland

16/09/2011

M. Kuchnicki

PLN 10,140

45.

63703/11

Bajakushev v. Poland

01/10/2011

M. Bajakushev

PLN 4,680 for the first set of proceedings and PLN 5,380 for the second set of proceedings

46.

65118/11

Czekaj v. Poland

13/10/2011

M. Czekaj

PLN 13,720

47.

73839/11

Majewicz v. Poland

18/11/2011

B. Słupska-Uczkiewicz

Pani Mecenas

Bogdana Słupska-Uczkiewicz

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Jedności Narodowej 118/2

PL - 50-300 Wrocław

M. Majewicz

PLN 24,960

48.

77559/11

Marszałek v. Poland

29/11/2011

Z. Marszałek

PLN 28,200

49.

77732/11

Pluciński v. Poland

28/11/2011

G. Pluciński

PLN 2,710

50.

78453/11

Wróblewski v. Poland

13/12/2011

A. Wróblewski

PLN 12,360

51.  

1054/12

Jarecki v. Poland

15/12/2011

J. Szydlowski

Pan Mecenas Jarosław Szydłowski

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Bogurodzicy 4

PL - 70-400 Szczecin

M. Jarecki

PLN 12,600

52.

1622/12

Sosnowski v. Poland

23/12/2011

L. Moczydłowski

Pan Mecenas

Łukasz Moczydłowski

Kancelaria Radców Prawnych i adwokatów

Prokurent

ul. Różana 61

PL – 02-569 Warszawa

M. Sosnowski

PLN 6,920

53.

3546/12

Kępka v. Poland

11/01/2012

E. Kępka

PLN 29,200

54.

4848/12

Zalewski v. Poland

09/01/2012

A. Zalewski

PLN 15,600

55.  

6060/12

Sękowska v. Poland

20/01/2012

I. Nakielska

Pani Mecenas Izabela Nakielska

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Jana Matejki 6/126

PL - 80-232 Gdańsk

B. Sękowska

PLN 10,480

56.

8974/12

Jarzyński v. Poland

16/01/2012

M. Żerański

Pan Mecenas Maciej Żerański

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Chlebnicka 48/51

PL - 80-830 Gdańsk

D. Jarzyński

PLN 33,290

57.

9940/12

Skalski v. Poland

27/01/2012

B. Skalski

PLN 15,900

58.

10557/12

Łacic v. Poland

20/02/2012

A. Łacic

PLN 18,720

59.

11960/12

Jachymczak v. Poland

21/02/2012

Ł. Jachymczak

PLN 11,740

60.

12251/12

Burzyński v. Poland

30/01/2012

M. Juśkiewicz

Pani Mecenas Marzena Juśkiewicz

Kancelaria Adwokacka

Al. Beliny Prażmowskiego 37/1

PL - 31-514 Kraków

P. Burzyński

PLN 7,800

Applicant did not reply

61.

12882/12

Schlabs v. Poland

09/02/2012

M. Schlabs

PLN 33,290

62.

14952/12

Olszewski v. Poland

05/03/2012

A. Olszewski

PLN 12,480

63.

15004/12

Grosicki v. Poland

08/03/2012

I. Nakielska

Pani Mecenas Izabela Nakielska

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Jana Matejki 6/126

PL - 80-232 Gdańsk

P. Grosicki

PLN 10,480

64.

15253/12

Wasiak v. Poland

24/02/2012

M. Wasiak

PLN 11,040

65.  

20348/12

Traczyk v. Poland

27/03/2012

K. Węgliński

Pan Mecenas Karol Węgliński

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Złotoryjska 21/5

PL - 59-220 Legnica

S. Traczyk

PLN 12,600

Applicant did not reply

66.

26319/12

Budzińska v. Poland

23/04/2012

M. Budzińska

PLN 12,480

67.  

30823/12

Ratajczak v. Poland

08/05/2012

J. Ratajczak

PLN 46,990

68.

34173/12

Tarka v. Poland

15/05/2012

O. Tarka

PLN 26,430

69.

34512/12

Klik v. Poland

26/03/2012

S. Klik

PLN 19,360

70.

34541/12

Stachniałek v. Poland

28/05/2012

K. Stachniałek

PLN 15,600

71.

36095/12

Kabot v. Poland

23/05/2012

S. Kabot

PLN 9,360

72.

37973/12

Kisielewicz v. Poland

15/05/2012

R. Kisielewicz

PLN 28,080

73.

38754/12

Orłowski v. Poland

16/04/2012

L. Orłowski

PLN 2,420

74.

38849/12

Skrzyński v. Poland

15/06/2012

P. Skrzyński

PLN 5,680

Applicant did not reply

75.  

43052/12

Kalinowski v. Poland

02/07/2012

K. Kalinowski

PLN 25,050

76.

46415/12

Nowak v. Poland

13/07/2012

A. Wójcik

Pani Anna Wójcik

ul. Snopowa 16

PL – 04-689 Warszawa

J. Nowak

PLN 7,800

77.

58876/12

Baran-Baranowski v. Poland

27/08/2012

W. Baran-Baranowski

PLN 18,930

78.

59435/12

Golonko v. Poland

30/08/2012

A. Golonko

PLN 40,560

79.

63989/12

Goliat v. Poland

28/09/2012

U. Goliat

PLN 7,870

80.

64789/12

Brajković v. Poland

22/09/2012

M. Brajković

PLN 24,210

81.

1747/13

Gumkowski v. Poland

17/12/2012

K. Kowalska

Pani Mecenas Katarzyna Kowalska

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Stanisława Dygata 3 lok. 46

PL - 01-748 Warszawa

A. Gumkowski

PLN 14,945

82.

3194/13

Wolański v. Poland

19/12/2012

K. Wolański

PLN 2,320

83.

5907/13

Kulik v. Poland

26/11/2012

J. Dużynski

Pan Mecenas Jacek Dużyński

Kancelaria Adwokacka

Plac Pocztowy 6/5

PL - 65-062 Zielona Góra

K. Kulik

PLN 17,720 for the first set of proceedings and PLN 18,990 for the second set of proceedings

84.

10174/13

Laskowski v. Poland

14/01/2013

T. Laskowski

PLN 12,840

85.

11757/13

Hoszowska v. Poland

12/02/2013

K. Kozub-Ciembroniewicz

Pan Mecenas

Konrad Kozub-Ciembroniewicz

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Madalińskiego 18

PL - 30-303 Kraków

D. Hoszowska

PLN 21,800

86.

16248/13

Czerkas v. Poland

26/02/2013

P. Czerkas

PLN 12,900

87.

28195/13

Piasecki v. Poland

08/04/2013

K. Piasecki

PLN 2,340

Applicant did not reply

88.

31947/13

Radziszewska-Jankowerny v. Poland

06/05/2013

M. Radziszewska-Jankowerny

PLN 2,340

89.

34587/13

Jurek v. Poland

17/05/2013

L. Jurek

PLN 12,480

90.

36362/13

Wojna v. Poland

09/05/2013

P. Wojna

PLN 9,360

91.

41354/13

Płachta v. Poland

17/06/2013

T. Płachta

PLN 13,620

92.

43614/13

Wodzicki v. Poland

01/07/2013

R. Wodzicki

PLN 8,110 for the first set of proceedings and PLN 10,140 for the second set of proceedings

93.

44305/13

Lasek v. Poland

01/07/2013

R. Lasek

PLN 12,480

94.

45944/13

Adasiak v. Poland

11/07/2013

M. Adasiak

PLN 10,900

95.

50503/13

Słowiński v. Poland

10/06/2013

W. Słowiński

PLN 10,920

96.

50548/13

Kokociński v. Poland

07/07/2013

G. Kokociński

PLN 17,090

Applicant did not reply

97.  

50865/13

Szklarski v. Poland

01/08/2013

D. Szklarski

PLN 46,730

Applicant did not reply

98.

51886/13

Salamonik v. Poland

31/07/2013

M. Szelenbaum-Kręt

Pani Mecenas

Małgorzata Szelenbaum-Kręt

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Nowogrodzka 15/4

PL - 00-511 Warszawa

B. Salamonik

PLN 36,320

99.

53941/13

Gawlas v. Poland

08/08/2013

M. Gawlas

PLN 34,810 for the first set of proceedings and PLN 26,520 for the second set of proceedings

100.

55290/13

Esslar International Broker SP. Z O.O. v. Poland

21/08/2013

D. Wieluński

Pan Prezes

Dominik Wieluński

ul. Drzewieckiego 34

PL - 21-500 Biała Podlaska

Esslar International Broker SP. Z O.O.

PLN 9,170

101.

58208/13

Wójcicki v. Poland

02/09/2013

J. Wójcicki

PLN 22,050

Applicant did not reply

102.

59687/13

Gruszka v. Poland

18/12/2013

J. Kłosiński

Pan Mecenas Jacek Kłosiński

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. A. Struga 7 lok. 3

PL - 90-420 Łódź

K. Gruszka

PLN 9,470

103.

60357/13

Kudeń v. Poland

19/08/2013

D. Kudeń

PLN 6,030

104.

60613/13

Młynarski v. Poland

11/09/2013

A. Młynarska

Pani Mecenas Agata Młynarska

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Kotlarska 6/3

PL - 31-539 Kraków

W. Młynarski

PLN 6,480

Applicant did not reply

105.

61084/13

Podlaski v. Poland

20/09/2013

J. Podlaski

PLN 4,240

106.

62318/13

Strzałkowski v. Poland

11/08/2013

P. Strzałkowski

PLN 12,480

107.

65512/13

Bekus v. Poland

07/10/2013

K. Bekus

PLN 7,510

108.

70414/13

Keller v. Poland

16/10/2013

R. Keller

PLN 26,770

109.

76517/13

Wójcicka v. Poland

27/11/2013

M. Wójcicka

PLN 2,170

110.

78008/13

Wardziński v. Poland

19/11/2013

M. Wardziński

PLN 19,340

111.

78148/13

Pawłowski v. Poland

26/11/2013

D. Pawłowski

PLN 9,690

112.

79928/13

Szulc v. Poland

10/10/2013

M. Szulc

PLN 9,690

113.

80026/13

Laszczak v. Poland

11/12/2013

T. Laszczak

PLN 10,140

114.

2667/14

Kowalik v. Poland

16/12/2013

S. Kotuła

Pan Mecenas Sebastian Kotuła

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Okopowa 12/6

PL - 20-022 Lublin

M. Kowalik

PLN 40,560

115.

15562/14

Wenta v. Poland

05/02/2014

M. Głowczyński

Pan Mecenas Marian Główczyński

Spółka Adwokacka S. C.Woliński Surewicz Główczyński i Partnerzy

ul. Uphagena 4/1

PL - 80-237 Gdańsk

J. Wenta

PLN 16,500

Applicant did not reply

116.  

22248/14

Brożyna v. Poland

05/04/2014

W. Brożyna

PLN 5,800 for the first set of proceedings and PLN 7,480 for the second set of proceedings

117.

34726/14

Polewany v. Poland

12/04/2014

Z. Polewany

PLN 19,960

118.

36955/14

Grymuła v. Poland

02/05/2014

A. Grymuła

PLN 19,840

119.

38799/14

Sidorczak v. Poland

19/05/2014

G. Sidorczak

PLN 12,900

120.

38804/14

Smolińska v. Poland

17/05/2014

T. Turek

Pan Mecenas Tomasz Turek

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Dobra 54 lok. 55

PL - 00-312 Warszawa

E. Smolińska

PLN 26,080

121.

39023/14

Mojsym v. Poland

19/05/2014

A. Mojsym

PLN 9,660

122.

44165/14

Barwiński v. Poland

06/06/2014

M. Barwiński

PLN 12,900

123.

61128/14

Kapuściński v. Poland

29/08/2014

B. Olesińska-Truszczyńska

Pani Mecenas

Barbara Olesińska-Truszczyńska

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Piękna 16 B lok. 6

PL - 00-539 Warszawa

P. Kapuściński

PLN 15,600

124.

70259/14

Śliwa v. Poland

26/11/2014

K. Śliwa

PLN 4,540

125.

70276/14

Słowiński v. Poland

23/10/2014

W. Słowiński

PLN 16,720

126.

76522/14

Szczerba v. Poland

01/12/2014

W. Szczerba

PLN 32,440

127.

77781/14

Górecki v. Poland

08/12/2014

S. Górecki

PLN 24,800

128.

792/15

Wadenhed v. Poland

17/12/2014

A. Rabenda-Ozimek

Pani Mecenas Agnieszka Rabenda-Ozimek

Kancelaria Radcy Prawnego

ul. Apartamentowa 15 lok. 15

PL - 02-495 Warszawa

T. Wadenhed

PLN 40,000

129.

4947/15

Gordon-Krajcer v. Poland

14/01/2015

L. Chojniak

Pan Mecenas Łukasz Chojniak

Kancelaria Adwokacka

ul. Kaliska 23 lok. 14

PL - 02-316 Warszawa

W. Gordon-Krajcer

PLN 13,460

130.

10529/15

Płomińska v. Poland

16/02/2015

I. Płomińska

PLN 19,380

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy