FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 59805/14 Jerzy HERMANN against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 25 February 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Pere Pastor Vilanova , President, Krzysztof Wojtyczek , Pauliine Koskelo , judges, and Renata Degener , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 August 2014 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 20 November 2019 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant ’ s reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1 . The applicant, Mr Jerzy Hermann , is a Polish national, who was born in 1939 and lives in Sulejówek . He was represented before the Court by Mr J. Baranowski , a lawyer practising in Warsaw .

2 . The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Sobczak , of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

3 . The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention of the unreasonable length of administrative proceedings in his case and of an ineffective remedy in that respect. He also alleged a breach of his right to property protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the unreasonable length of the proceedings.

4 . The application had been communicated to the Government .

THE LAW

5 . After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 20 November 2019 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

6 . The declaration provided as follows:

“The Government hereby wish to express — by way of the unilateral declaration — their acknowledgement of the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights resulting from the unreasonable length of the proceedings in the applicant’s case and the violation of Article 13 of the Convention with respect to the lack of an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government further acknowledge that the length of the administrative proceedings in the present case also gave rise to an interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

Simultaneously, they declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 10,400 (then thousand four hundred euros) which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the individual circumstances of the present case, as well as the Court’s case-law in similar cases (...). The sum referred to above, which is to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum will be converted into Polish zlotys at the rate applicable on the date of payment and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from 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”.

7 . By a letter of 17 December 2019 , the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration , in particular on the ground that the sum proposed by the Government was inadequate.

8 . The Court re iterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular 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”.

9 . It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.

10 . To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o . v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).

11 . The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96 , § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01 , §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006 ‑ ....; Majewski v. Poland , no. 52690/99 , 11 October 2005; and WcisÅ‚o and Cabaj v. Poland , nos. 49725/11 , and 79950/13 , 8 November 2018).

12 . Having regard to the nature of 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 (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

13 . Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, 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 (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

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

15 . In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration under Article s 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

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

Done in English and notified in writing on 19 March 2020 .

Renata Degener Pere Pastor Vilanova Deputy Registrar President