LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
STODOLSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND
Doc ref: 44745/17, 45997/17, 60051/17, 74304/17, 942/18, 11556/18, 24742/18, 24893/18, 26297/18, 39951/18, 41... • ECHR ID: 001-209846
Document date: April 8, 2021
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 4
STODOLSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND
Doc ref: 44745/17, 45997/17, 60051/17, 74304/17, 942/18, 11556/18, 24742/18, 24893/18, 26297/18, 39951/18, 41... • ECHR ID: 001-209846
Document date: April 8, 2021
Cited paragraphs only
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 44745/17 Tomasz STODOLSKI against Poland and 14 other applications
(s ee appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 8 April 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková , President, Péter Paczolay , Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application s lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicant s and their representatives is set out in the appended table.
The applicants ’ complaints 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 were communicated to the Polish Government (“the Government”) .
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision .
The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They acknowledged the excessive length of proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . They offered to pay the applicants the amount s detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount s would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court ’ s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three ‑ month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, 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 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.
The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case s .
The applicant s were sent the terms of the Government ’ s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicant s accepting the terms of the declarations.
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 cases 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 the excessive length of civil and criminal proceedings and the lack of effective remedy ( see, for example, Rutkowski and Others v. Poland , nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, §§ 160 and 186, 7 July 2015, with further references ).
Noting the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declarations as well as their general undertaking related to the adoption of the range of general measures and the amount of compensation proposed by them – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases against Poland – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)); see also the conclusions reached in the first group of cases submitted in the pilot-judgment procedure, Załuska and Rogalska v. Poland and 398 other applications ( dec. ), nos. 53491/10 and 72286/10, §§ 48-55, 20 June 2017).
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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications 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 cases out of the list .
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the 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 29 April 2021 .
{signature_p_2}
Viktoriya Maradudina Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention (excessive length of civil and criminal proceedings and lack of an effective remedy in domestic law)
No.
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant ’ s name
Year of birth /
Year of registration
Representative ’ s name and location
Date of receipt of Government ’ s declaration
Date of receipt of applicant ’ s comments, if any
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per applicant
(in Polish Zloty PLN ) [1]
44745/17
14/06/2017
Tomasz STODOLSKI
1976Lipski Marcin
Gdańsk
17/06/2020
9,360
45997/17
20/06/2017
SIGNELLA 1 ANDRZEJ I SŁAWOMIR STASZEWSCY SP. JAWNA
2001Zygmont Bogumił
Warszawa
26/06/2020
07/10/2020
7,360
60051/17
09/08/2017
Tomasz STODOLSKI
1976Lipski Marcin
Gdańsk
17/06/2020
6,240
74304/17
12/10/2017
Edward TOPOLSKI
1937
17/06/2020
31/07/2020
9,360
942/18
28/12/2017
Radosław MAZAK
1971Mazak Sylwia
Pszczyna
25/09/2020
09/11/2020
8,420
11556/18
26/02/2018
Włodzimierz SŁOWIŃSKI
1956
25/06/2020
28/09/2020
9,360
24742/18
15/05/2018
Kamil NOWAK
1992
25/09/2020
27/11/2020
4,400
24893/18
12/05/2018
Włodzimierz SŁOWIŃSKI
1956
26/06/2020
28/09/2020
5,800
26297/18
29/05/2018
Leszek CZAJEWSKI
1962Badowski Andrzej
Szczecin
25/06/2020
15,440
39951/18
07/09/2019
Włodzimierz SŁOWIŃSKI
1956
25/09/2020
03/11/2020
13,464
41501/18
09/10/2018
Grzegorz GNIADO
1962
25/09/2020
09/12/2020
34,320
51426/18
18/10/2018
Jacek SADŁOWSKI
1980Anna KOÅšMIDER
1979Krawiec Diana Dominika
Warszawa
25/06/2020
16/09/2020
14,820
to each applicant
3279/19
07/01/2019
Alfred WÓJCIK
1947
26/06/2020
24/09/2020
4,240
8071/19
01/02/2019
Jacek Kazimierz PASZKOWSKI
1970
25/09/2020
26/11/2020
20,680
16698/19
20/03/2019
Marek Krzysztof RÓŻYCKI
1985
26/06/2020
02/11/2020
6,360
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
