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.
WASILEWSKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND
Doc ref: 21182/17;21209/17;83451/17;83612/17;7831/18;24521/18;31779/18;54143/18;7691/19;18579/19;19776/19 • ECHR ID: 001-208852
Document date: February 18, 2021
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 4
WASILEWSKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND
Doc ref: 21182/17;21209/17;83451/17;83612/17;7831/18;24521/18;31779/18;54143/18;7691/19;18579/19;19776/19 • ECHR ID: 001-208852
Document date: February 18, 2021
Cited paragraphs only
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 21182/17 Marzena WASILEWSKA against Poland and 10 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 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 further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention .
The Government 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 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 .
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 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
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]
21182/17
06/03/2017
Marzena WASILEWSKA
1965
26/06/2020
08/10/2020
29,940
21209/17
07/03/2017
Janusz WASILEWSKI
1949
26/06/2020
08/10/2020
29,940
83451/17
23/11/2017
Antoni GOŁEK
(name change: Olivier Piela )
1972
25/09/2020
16/11/2020
8,890
83612/17
05/12/2017
Andrzej KAMIEŃSKI
1955Zacharzewski Paweł Wacław
Szczecin
25/09/2020
23/11/2020
9,170
7831/18
07/02/2018
Artur Grzegorz BUDZYŃSKI
1974
25/09/2020
04/12/2020
9,360
24521/18
09/05/2018
Tomasz LENDZION
1970
25/09/2020
23/11/2020
23,710
31779/18
20/06/2018
Tomasz JAKUBOWSKI
1968Bzdyń Agata
Warszawa
25/09/2020
23/11/2020
33,440
54143/18
25/04/2019
Krystian PRUŻYŃSKI
1982
25/09/2020
04/12/2020
21,840
7691/19
22/01/2019
Robert SULIGA
1976
26/06/2020
24/09/2020
12,160
18579/19
19/03/2019
Dariusz Sebastian KACZMARCZYK
1976
25/09/2020
27/11/2020
7,570
19776/19
27/03/2019
Damian OBREMSKI
1972
25/09/2020
19/11/2020
3,710
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
