FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 16116/04 by Bogumił Tomasz NOWACKI 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 16 February 2004,

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 Bogumił Tomasz Nowacki, a Polish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Wodzisław Śląski.

The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

On 3 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 Jastrzębie Zdrój Prison from an unspecified date in June 2002 until 3 March 2008.

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 BogumiÅ‚ Nowacki w ith a view to securing a f riendly settlement of the above ‑ mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, PLN 17,000 ( seventeen thousand 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 14 December 2010 the Court received the following decl aration signed by the applicant:

“ I, BogumiÅ‚ Nowacki , note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me, with a view to securing a f riendly settlement of the above ‑ mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, PLN 17,000 ( seventeen thousand 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 my 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.

I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare 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