FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 79752/16 M.Z. and Others against Poland

(s ee appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 1 July 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Erik Wennerström , President, Lorraine Schembri Orland, Ioannis Ktistakis, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 April 2017,

Having regard to the decision to grant the applicants anonymity under Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicant s is set out in the appended table.

The applicants were represented by Mr J. Białas , a lawyer practising in Warsaw.

The applicants ’ complaints under Articles 5 §§ 1 and 4 and 8 of the Convention concerning their administrative detention in a guarded centre for aliens pending their application for refugee status were communicated to the Polish Government (“the Government”) . C omplaints based on the same facts raised by the first applicant were also communicated under Article 3 of the Convention.

THE LAW

The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention .

The Government acknowledged a violation of the applicants ’ right s under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention, as well as their right to respect for a private and family life in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicants the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court ’ s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the 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.

The applicant s disagreed with the terms of the declaration, in particular as regards the complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4. They maintained that there was a systemic problem in Poland relating to detention of foreigners and insisted on an examination of their application on the merits.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it 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”.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant s wish the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to violations of Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 and Article 8 of the Convention on account of the unlawful detention in a guarded centre for aliens (see, for example, Bistieva and Others v. Poland , no. 75157/14, 10 April 2018, and Bilalova and Others v. Poland , no. 23685/14, 26 March 2020).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application in the part covered by the unilateral declaration (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

In the light of 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 the application in the part covered by the unilateral declaration (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia ( dec. ), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list as regards the complaints concerning Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 and Article 8 of the Convention.

The first applicant also raised a complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, arguing that as a victim of violence in her country of origin, she should not have been placed in detention at all.

The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration in so far as they concern the complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 and Article 8 of the Convention, and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 22 July 2021 .

             {signature_p_2}

Viktoriya Maradudina Erik Wennerström Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 and Article 8 of the Convention

( D etention in a guarded centre for foreigners)

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant ’ s name

Year of birth

Representative ’ s name and location

Date of receipt of Government ’ s declaration

Date of receipt of applicants ’ comments, if any

Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage

per household

(in euros) [1]

79752/16

25/04/2017

Household

M. Z.

1992T. M.

1987A. M.

2014Z. M.

2015Białas Jacek

Warsaw

20/05/2021

11/06/2021

15,000

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant .