FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 20136/02 by Danuta WNUK against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section), sitting on 3 June 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza , President, Lech Garlicki , Ljiljana Mijović , David Thór Björgvinsson , Ján Šikuta , Päivi Hirvelä , Mihai Poalelungi , judges

and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 June 2001,

Having regard to the unsuccessful friendly settlement negotiations,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.

Having regard to the Government ’ s request to strike the case out of its list of cases and the text of a unilateral declaration made with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application,

Having regard to the applicant ’ s comments on the Government ’ s proposal for a unilateral declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mrs Danuta Wnuk , is a Polish national who was born in 1947 and lives in Trzebnica . She is represented by Ms B. S Å‚upska ‑ Uczkiewicz , a lawyer practising in WrocÅ‚aw . The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mr J. WoÅ‚Ä…siewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows.

1. Civil proceedings

On 21 December 1998 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s cassation appeal against a decision of 30 March 1998 given by the Wrocław Regional Court , concerning the Wrocław District Court ’ s decision of 27 October 1997 to discontinue civil proceedings against the State Agricultural Agency following a court settlement between the parties.

By a final decision of 20 December 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s cassation ap peal against the decision of 29 September 1999 refusing the applicant ’ s request to grant her retrospective leave to appeal out of time against the decision of 27 October 1997.

2. The decision concerning contempt of court

The applicant was involved, as a wronged party and private prosecutor, in criminal proceedings against a third party.

On 22 December 2000 S.D. a single judge of the Trzebnica District Court , sitting in camera , imposed a fine in the amount of 500 PLN (in default of payment, five days ’ imprisonment) on the applicant for contempt of court committed during these proceedings. The court considered that the applicant had been repeatedly making abusive statements in her written submissions to the court . The court further observed that it had already reprimanded the ap plicant for her unseemly behaviour and warned her of the possible punitive sanctions therefor .

This decision was immediately enforceable and not subject to appeal.

The applicant learned about it on 27 December 2000, when it was served on her.

In a letter of 28 December 2000 to the Wroc ław Court of Appeal, entitled “appeal – complaint” the applicant stated that she was not guilty of any misconduct and that “the judges themselves brought disgrace on the court.” She claimed that it was Mr. Justice D. who had committed a contempt of court, inter alia , in that “he had accused a victim [of the offence] instead of a perpetrator and abused his powers by suppressing evidence against wealthy criminals.” She also alleged that the judge had committed other procedural shortcomings in the proceedings. She declared that she was willing to go to prison and requested the court to give her relevant instructions.

On 26 January 2001 the President of the Trzebnica District Court requested the prosecutor to institute a criminal investigation against the applicant on charges of insulting judge S.D. in connection with his carrying out of his official duties.

O n 6 February 2001 the Trzebnica District Court ordered that the applicant should be detained for five days from 19 February 2001 until 24 February 2001 pursuant to s ection 43 § 2 of the Law of 20 June 1985 on the Structure of Courts of Law. The applicant was released on 24 February 2001 from Wrocław prison.

On an unspecified date the applicant challenged all judges sitting in the Trzebnica District Court, claiming that in the proceedings in which a fine had been imposed on her they had been biased against her.

By a decision of 9 March 2001 the Wrocław Regional Court dismissed her challenge, considering it unfounded.

By a decision of 30 March 2001 the Trzebnica District Prosecutor discontinued a criminal investigation against the applicant concerning the insulting of a judge in carrying out his official duties. The prosecutor referred to the following statements contained in the applicant ’ s letters to the court, dated 12 December, 22 December 200 0 and 10 February 2001: judge S.D. “abuses his post and the court to protect criminals”, “protects criminals” and “acts as a legal representative of criminals”. The prosecutor had regard to the case ‑ law of the Supreme Court concerning the scope of freedom of expression in judicial proceedings and c onsider ed that the applicant could not be blamed for defending her rig hts, however subjective and ill ‑ advised the statements she used might have been.

B. Relevant domestic law

P ursuant to section 43 of the Act of 25 June 1985 on the Structure of Courts of Law, in case of any serious interference with the functioning of a court (insulting the dignity of the court, disturbing proceedings or interfering with the administration of justice), the court could impose on an offender a fine not exceeding the equivalent of two minimum salaries or commit the offender to prison for a period not exceeding seven days.

Section 44 § 1 of the 1985 Act provided that the penalties should be enforceable immediately and no appeal should lie against them.

According to section 44 § 2 where a fine imposed proved to be irrecoverable, the court had to convert it into a period of imprisonment not exceeding 7 days.

On 1 October 2001 the Act of 27 July 2001 of the Structure of Courts of Law entered into force. Pursuant to section 50 of the 2001 Act, an appeal against a court ’ s decision imposi ng a penalty lies with a second ‑ instance court.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant, invoking Articles 6, 8, 13, 14 and 17 of the Convention, complained that in the civil proceedings she had been deprived of a fair trial in that the courts had falsified documents and evidence in the course of the proceedings against the State Agricultural Agency and had given wrong decisions.

She further complained about the decision of 22 December 2000. She argued that she had been deprived of liberty as a result of a decision given in proceedings which had not been held in public, in which she had not had any opportunity of defending her rights in an open court and without there being any effective domestic remedy available to her to review the lawfulness of this decision. She submitted that as a pensioner she had been too poor to be able to pay the fine which had been imposed in the highest amount foreseen by the law applicable at that time, and to ensure an effective defence of her rights. She also submitted that the order to detain her for contempt of court had constituted an unlawful deprivation of her liberty. The applicant relied on Articles 6 § 1, 5 § 1, 5 § 4, 13 and 14 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. On 21 January 2008 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue s raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration provided as follows:

“(...) the Government hereby wish to express - by way of unilateral declaration — its acknowledgement of the violation of the applicant ’ s right to access to the court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicant the sum of 17,000 PLN (EUR 4, 975) which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court ’ s case-law. The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

The Government would respectfully suggest that the above declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court ’ s list of cases as referred to in Article 37 1 (c) of the Convention.

...

The Government agree with the statement of facts surrounding the present case as it was prepared by the Registry of the Court and enclosed to the letter informing the Government that the above application [was] pending before the Court.

... the shortcomings of the domestic legislation at the root of the acknowledged violation in the present case had already been remedied by the legislative amendments...”

The applicant requested the Court to reject the Government ’ s initiative .

The Court observes at the outset that the parties were unable to agree on the terms of a friendly settlement of the case. It recalls that, according to Article 38 § 2 of the Convention, friendly-settlement negotiations are confidential and that Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court further stipulates that no written or oral communication and no offer or concession made in the framework of the attempt to secure a friendly settlement may be referred to or relied on in contentious proceedings. However, the declaration was made by the Government outside the framework of the friendly-settlement negotiations.

The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application or part of an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:

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

Article 37 § 1 in fine includes the proviso that:

“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.”

The Court also recalls that under certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey , [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI ); Meriakri v. Moldova ( ( striking out), no. 53487/99 , 1 March 2005 ); Swe dish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ( (striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006 ) and Van Houten v. the Netherlands ( ( striki ng out), no. 25149/03 , ECHR 2005 ‑ IX ).

As to the circumstances of the instant case, t he Court first notes that the facts are not in dispute between the parties.

It further notes that the Law of 25 June 1985 on the Structure of Courts of Law the provisions of which gave rise to the applicant ’ s complaint about the procedure to be followed in respect of contempt of court was repealed in 2001. This Law was replaced by the Law of 27 July 200 1 of the Structure of Courts of Law which entered into force o n 1 October 2001 . Under section 50 of the 2001 Act, currently an appeal against a court ’ s decision imposing a fine in the context of contempt of court is available.

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s unilateral declaration, and in particular to their admission that there has been a breach of the Convention in the applicant ’ s case, as well as to the amount of compensation proposed which can be considered reasonable, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)) (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar as cited above ; and also Haran v. Turkey , no. 25754/94, judgment of 26 March 2002).

In the light of all the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of th is complaint ( Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

The Court further notes that this decision constitutes a final resolution of this application only in so far as the proceedings before the Court are concerned. It is without prejudice to the use by the applicant of other remedies before the domestic courts to claim further compensation in respect of the impugned proceedings.

Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list and the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued .

2. The applicant further complained that in the civil proceedings she had been deprived of a fair trial in that the courts had falsified documents and evidence in the course of proceedings and had given wrong decisions.

Insofar as the applicant complained about the alleged forgery of documents by the court, the Court considers that this complaint is unsubstantiated.

Insofar as she complained about the outcome of the civil proceedings, the Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I). It is the national authorities, in particular courts and tribunals, that are charged with interpreting the internal law of a Contracting Party (see Houfová v. Czech Republic ( dec .), no. 58177/00, 1 July 2003).

The Court notes that the applicant benefited from an examination of her case by ordinary courts at two instances with full jurisdiction to assess the relevant facts and law. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

3. Having regard to the above consideration, the application of the Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the complaint concerning to the proceedings for contempt of court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

FatoÅŸ Aracı Nicolas Bratza              Deputy Registrar President