FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 6585/02 by Mariusz BEREZOWSKI against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 8 February 2011 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza , President, Lech Garlicki , Ljiljana Mijović , Päivi Hirvelä , Ledi Bianku , Zdravka Kalaydjieva , Nebojša Vučinić , judges, and Lawrence Early , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 December 2001,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The application was lodged by Mr Mariusz Berezowski , a Polish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Gliwice . He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Nowak, a lawyer practising in Chorz ów . The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

On 27 October 2006 the President of the Fourth Section decided to communicate the applicant ’ s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, in so far as it concerned the conditions of his detention in Gliwice Remand Centre and Jastrzębie Zdrój Prison from 28 October 1999 until 21 December 2004.

THE LAW

On 6 December 2010 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“I , Jakub WoÅ‚Ä…siewicz , Agent of the Government , declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay, to Mr Mariusz Berezowski w ith a view to securing a f riendly settlement of the above ‑ mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, PLN 14,400 ( fourteen thousand four hundred Polish zlotys) , plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. The payment is intended to provide the applicant with redress for the systemic violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of his detention, in particular overcrowding, as identified by the Court in the pilot judgment given in the case of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) on 22 October 2009 (see paragraphs 135 and 147 et seq.) .

This sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case .”

On 7 January 2011 the Court received the following decl aration signed by the applicant ’ s lawyer:

“ I, Marcin Nowak , note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay to Mr Mariusz Berezowski, with a view to securing a f riendly settlement of the above ‑ mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, PLN 14,400 ( fourteen thousand four hundred Polish zlotys), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. I further note that the payment constitutes redress for the systemic violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of his detention, in particular overcrowding, as identified by the Court in the pilot judgment given in the case of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) on 22 October 2009 (see paragraphs 135 and 147 et seq.).

This sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Having consulted my client, I would inform you that he accepts the proposal and waives any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. He declares that this constitutes a final resolution of the case .”

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Pr otocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza Registrar President