Search
document

HOFFMAN AND OTHERS v. POLAND

Doc ref: 59790/17, 60071/17, 69071/17, 72120/17, 59/18, 1374/18, 2560/18, 5564/18, 6921/18, 904/19, 7797/19, ... • ECHR ID: 001-207711

Document date: December 17, 2020

Inbound citations: 1
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 4

HOFFMAN AND OTHERS v. POLAND

Doc ref: 59790/17, 60071/17, 69071/17, 72120/17, 59/18, 1374/18, 2560/18, 5564/18, 6921/18, 904/19, 7797/19, ... • ECHR ID: 001-207711

Document date: December 17, 2020

Cited paragraphs only

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 59790/17 Marcin HOFFMAN against Poland and 13 other applications

(s ee appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 December 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, President, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Erik Wennerström , judges,

and Liv Tigerstedt, 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 court 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 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) of the Convention; 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 21 January 2021 .

Liv Tigerstedt Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention

(excessive length of civil proceedings and the 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]

59790/17

09/08/2017

Marcin HOFFMAN

1971Ponikiewski Patryk

Bielsko – Bia ł a

17/06/2020

06/08/2020

27,820

60071/17

09/08/2017

Mirosława LORAJ

1961Cichoń Zbigniew

Kraków

17/06/2020

07/08/2020

40,560

69071/17

08/09/2017

Łukasz DUDEK

1983

17/06/2020

27/07/2020

12,600

72120/17

26/09/2017

Alicja KUÅšNIEREK

1951

17/06/2020

24/07/2020

26,820

59/18

14/12/2017

Grzegorz DEPTUCH

1972

25/06/2020

14/09/2020

3,040

1374/18

22/01/2018

Rafał JARNO

1990

25/06/2020

10/08/2020

8,890

2560/18

30/12/2017

Janina MITAL

1932SÅ‚upska-Uczkiewicz Bogdana

Wrocław

25/06/2020

16/10/2020

12,230

5564/18

22/01/2018

Włodzimierz SŁOWIŃSKI

1956

25/06/2020

12/08/2020

11,860

6921/18

18/12/2017

Włodzimierz SŁOWIŃSKI

1956

25/06/2020

21/09/2020

19,640

904/19

13/12/2018

Henryk KORPYTA

1962

17/06/2020

10/08/2020

10,600

7797/19

16/01/2019

Jakub Rafał ZAIC

1962

25/06/2020

03/09/2020

13,000

13231/19

06/03/2019

Piotr SZMIDT

1973Lipski Marcin

Gdańsk

17/06/2020

14/08/2020

19,840

13238/19

06/03/2019

Małgorzata SZMIDT

1953Lipski Marcin

Gdańsk

17/06/2020

14/08/2020

19,840

21410/19

13/04/2019

Włodzimierz SŁOWIŃSKI

1956

17/06/2020

20/07/2020

6,240

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

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant