FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 70345/14 Wojciech Kazimierz CIEÅšLA against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 22 October 2019 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 24 October 2014,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 3 June 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 Wojciech Kazimierz Cieśla , is a Polish national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Warsaw. He was represented before the Court by Ms A. Chajewska and Mr K.M. Orlik , lawyers practising in Warsaw.

2 . The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Co-Agent, Ms A. M ęż ykowska and subsequently by their Agent Mr. J. Sobczak of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

3 . The applicant complained that his conviction for defamation by virtue of the judgment of the Warsaw District Court of 14 February 2013, upheld by the Warsaw Regional Court on 10 September 2013, constituted an unjustified and disproportionate interference with the freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention

4 . The complaints under Article 10 of the Convention were communicated to the Government .

THE LAW

5 . The applicant complained that he was convicted of defamation through media. He relied on Article 10 of the Convention.

6 . After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 3 June 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.

7 . The declaration provided as follows:

“ The Government hereby wish to express — by way of the unilateral declaration — their acknowledgement of an interference with the applicants” freedom of expression in breach of Article 10 of the Convention.

Simultaneously, they decl are that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the individual circumstances of the present case. 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.

... [t]he Government ’ s unilateral declaration contains an unconditional acknowledgement that in the present case there was a violation of their obligations arising under Article 10 of the Convention with respect to the applicant ’ s freedom of expression.

... As transpires from the Government ’ s unilateral declaration, they accepted paying to the applicant the sum of EUR 4, 0 00 as just satisfaction in the event of the Court ’ s striking the case out of its list. ”

8 . By a letter of 9 July 2019, the applicant ’ s representative indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that it had concerned only the alleged breach of Article 10 of the Convention.

9 . 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”.

10 . 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.

11 . 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).

12 . 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 freedom of expression (see, for example, Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, ECHR 2004 ‑ XI; CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, ECHR 2004 ‑ XI; Stankiewicz and Others v. Poland , no. 48723/07 , 14 October 2014; and Marian Maciejewski v. Poland , no. 34447/05, 13 January 2015).

13 . 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)).

14 . 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 ).

15 . The Court considers that this amount should be converted into Polish zlotys at the rate applicable at the date of payment, and paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court ’ s decision issued in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to settle within this period, simple interest shall be payable on the amount in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points.

16 . 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).

17 . 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 10 of 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 14 November 2019 .

Renata Degener Pere Pastor Vilanova Deputy Registrar President