FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 54047/16 Daniel KARASEK against Poland and 9 other applications

(s ee appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 February 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 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 further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

In each application the Government acknowledged a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of proceedings, as well as a violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts 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 an effective remedy in this regard (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 the amount of compensation proposed – 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 as regards the complaints concerning the excessive length of civil and criminal proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.

In the applications nos. 54047/16 and 37508/17 the applicant s also raised other complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 8 § 1 of the Convention.

The Court has examined the application s listed in the appended table 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 s must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declarations in so far as they concern the excessive length of proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in this regard , and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike this part of the applications, as covered by the Government ’ s unilateral declarations, out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the applications nos. 54047/16 and 37508/17 inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 11 March 2021 .

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

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]

54047/16

07/09/2016

Daniel KARASEK

1979

25/06/2020

28/09/2020

9,360

27273/17

29/03/2017

Piotr CUDNY

1980

26/06/2020

24/09/2020

9,190

37508/17

17/05/2017

Marek Piotr MAJEWSKI

1965

26/06/2020

25/09/2020

6,360

46594/17

31/07/2017

Jaime Eduardo CARDONA GIRALDO

1957

26/06/2020

28/08/2020

13,030

12943/18

06/03/2018

Joanna GNIEWEK

1953

25/06/2020

08/10/2020

28,080

13771/18

09/03/2018

Adam DANILUK

1979

26/06/2020

06/10/2020

4,800

13835/18

06/03/2018

Dobromir GNIEWEK

1951

25/06/2020

07/10/2020

28,080

24249/18

14/05/2018

Łukasz Tomasz SZUSTAK

1982

26/06/2020

27/10/2020

4,240

26284/18

24/05/2018

Tadeusz MRÓZ

1934

25/06/2020

08/10/2020

36,430

8414/19

01/02/2019

Kazimierz RUTKOWSKI

1966

25/06/2020

06/10/2020

7,720

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