ZAŁUSKA, ROGALSKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND
Doc ref: 53491/10, 12452/08, 33010/09, 34524/09, 37778/09, 45807/09, 47807/09, 53621/09, 54417/09, 54487/09, ... • ECHR ID: 001-175111
Document date: June 20, 2017
- Inbound citations: 127
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 20
- •
- Outbound citations: 15
F IRST 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 list s appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (F irst Section), sitting on 20 June 201 7 as a C hamber 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 application s 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 40 0 unilateral declarations submitted by the Government and 2 70 formal declarations from the applicants accepting a fr iendly settlement of the ir 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 Za ł uska ( “ the first applicant”) on 16 August 2010. Application no. 72286/10 was lodged by Ms Marianna Rogalska (“the second applicant”) on 1 December 2010 .
Loading citations...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 ” ) wer e represented by their Agent, M s 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 t he applicant s 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 problem s, 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 constraint s , 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 tackl e the problem”, stressing that the Committee of Ministers, in the course of the pending execution of j udgment s 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 t w o 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 princip a l 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 paragraph s 23-26 below).
12 . Th e above declaration was followed by four further declarations phrase d in the same terms , which were submitted, respectively, on 3 March 2016 (50 cases ), 7 July 2016 (100 cases ) , 3 November 2016 (11 2 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 resp onse to the u nilateral declarations, in 2 70 cases the applicants accepted the Government ’ s proposal . In 1 12 cases the applicant ’ s rejected the Government ’ s offer of payment, asking the Court for higher just-satisfaction awards . I n 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 ( rz ą dowy 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 niekt ó rych innych ustaw ; “the 2016 Government Bill”). In an explanatory report, it was stated that th e 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 o f the courts of law and other statutes”.
17 . On 4 November 2016, after the third reading, Sejm adopted the 2016 G o vernm e nt Bill with some amendments . In particular, it amended draft section 12(4) of the 2004 Act and reduced th e statutory minimum award per year to PLN 500 (around EUR 125).
18 . On 15 November 2016 , at the next stage of the legislative procedure, t he Senate ( the upper house of the Polish Parliament) amended the above p rovision in the bill and increased the sum to PLN 1,000. However, subsequently, Sejm rejected the Senate ’ s amendments.
19 . On 30 November 201 6 Sejm passed the law on amendments t o the law on the organisation of the courts of law and other statutes ( ustawa o zmianie ustawy – Prawo o ustroju s ą d ó w powszechnych oraz niekt ó rych 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 20 04 Act, pursuant to which the courts are obliged to apply the Act “in accordance with the standards deriving from the [Convention]”.
21 . S ection 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 s ection 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. ... ”
T HE LAW
A. The Government ’ s unilateral declaration s
23 . The Government ’ s unilateral declarations, in part relating to general considerations read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“ THE GOVERNMENT ’ S UNILATERAL DEC LA RATION
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 adversaria l 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 . Po lan d 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 C ourt.
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 t he 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 read s 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;
• t o 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 declaration s 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 th e 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 re dress 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, § 36-3 7 and Hutten-Czapska (friendly settlement), cited above, § 35).
C. The Court ’ s assessment
1. As regards the case of Mr Za ł uska and 2 6 9 other cases in which the applicants ’ accept ed 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 2 70 applications should be joined.
(b) Application of Article 37 § 1 taken in conjunction with Article 39 o f the Convention
32 . The Court observes at the outset that the applicants concerned accepted the Government ’ s unilateral declaration, whereby the Government acknowled ged a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention in their cases and offer ed 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 . A rticle 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 condition s 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 , i n 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) .
I n 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 f riendly 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 th ese 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 2 68 -27 2 ; 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 §§ 2 68 -27 2 ).
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 declaration s , 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 th at 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).
U nder 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 mi nimum 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, t he Court cannot speculate wh at 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 . H aving 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, t he 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 Article s 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.
T he 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 paragraph s 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 declaration s (see paragraph 25 abo ve) 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 . H aving regard to the object of the pilot-judgment as stated above (see paragraphs 28-3 0 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, a s 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 2 70 case s concerned out of the Court ’ s list.
2. As regards the case of Ms Rogalska and 1 29 other cases in which the applicants refused the Government ’ s proposal or failed to make any comments on the Government ’ s proposal
48 . In 1 12 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 13 0 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 2 70 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 3 7 and 4 5 above).
Since all t he Government ’ s unilateral declarations are set in the identical terms, the same conclusions apply to the present cases.
52 . As regards the 1 12 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 h aving 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 application s (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 . T he 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 13 0 case s out of the Court ’ s list .
For these reasons, the Court , unanimously ,
Decides to join the 2 70 applications listed in Annex I to this decision;
Decides to strike the above 2 70 application s out of its list of cases in accordance with Article s 37 § 1 (b) and 39 § 3 of the Convention ;
Decides to join the 13 0 applications listed in Annex II to this decision;
Decides to strike the above 13 0 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 Degener Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos Deputy Registrar President
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
Haberki ewicz 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 Åšwidnica
W. Domagała
PLN 31,200
17 .
58144/10
Pukacz v. Poland
20/09/2010
D. Pukacz
PLN 3,900
18 .
59547/10
Åšwierszcz v. Poland
04/10/2010
M. Åšwierszcz
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. Skórzyb u t
Mr Stanisław Skórzyb u t
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
Åšpiewak v. Poland
07/01/2011
A. Åšpiewak
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
StÄ…czek v. Poland
20/01/2011
A. StÄ…czek
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
PiÄ…tek v. Poland
20/01/2011
P. PiÄ…tek
PLN 12,360
60 .
24576/11
ZajÄ…c v. Poland
17/11/2011
H. Majcherkiewicz
Pani Helena Majcherkiewicz
Osiedle. Albertyńskie 28/1
PL - 31854 Kraków
L. ZajÄ…c
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
GÅ‚owaty v. Poland
28/04/2011
P. GÅ‚owaty
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
PortuÅ› v. Poland
03/08/2011
T. PortuÅ›
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 . DÄ…browskiego 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 SÅ‚awomir Ciesielski
Kancelaria Adwokatów i Radców Prawnych
Pl. Wolności 9/5a III p.
PL - 61-738 Poznań
M. Mleczak
PLN 26,790
123 .
7643/12
FrÄ…czek v. Poland
18/01/2012
T. FrÄ…czek
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
KlupÅ› v. Poland
30/01/2012
T. KlupÅ›
PLN 9,360
127 .
11926/12
Trela v. Poland
13/02/2012
J. Trela
PLN 10,600
128 .
12202/12
PiÄ…tkowski v. Poland
17/02/2012
B. PiÄ…tkowski
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
Åšciborowski v. Poland
11/12/2012
K. Åšciborowski
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
BÅ‚aszczak v. Poland
17/04/2013
D. BÅ‚aszczak
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 . ÅšlÄ…ska 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. NebeÅ›
W. NebeÅ›
PLN 6,410 to K. Maczan,
PLN 6,410 to
W. NebeÅ›,
PLN 6,410 to
D. NebeÅ›, and
PLN 6,410 to
I. Maczan
243 .
78866/13
Zosiuk v. Poland
29/11/2013
G. Zosiuk
PLN 12,790
244 .
79322/13
Marszałk owski 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, 84 0
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. P oland
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
DÄ…browski v. Poland
22/02/2011
T. DÄ…browski
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
Åšliwa v. Poland
23/05/2011
A. Åšliwa
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. SÅ‚upska-Uczkiewicz
Pani Mecenas
Bogdana SÅ‚upska-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 . ZÅ‚otoryjska 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
PÅ‚achta v. Poland
17/06/2013
T. PÅ‚achta
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
MÅ‚ynarski v. Poland
11/09/2013
A. MÅ‚ynarska
Pani Mecenas Agata MÅ‚ynarska
Kancelaria Adwokacka
ul . Kotlarska 6/3
PL - 31-539 Kraków
W. MÅ‚ynarski
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 Adwokack a 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
Åšliwa v. Poland
26/11/2014
K. Åšliwa
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