FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 25481/16 Ryszard DOŁOMISIEWICZ against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 22 October 2019 as a Committee composed of:

Tim Eicke, President, Jovan Ilievski, Raffaele Sabato, judges, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 April 2016,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 12 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 Ryszard Dołomisiewicz , is a Polish national, who was born in 1966 and lives in Ż o łę dowo . He was represented before the Court by Ms D. Kalinowska, a lawyer practising in Bydgoszcz.

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

3 . The applicant alleged that his arrest had been unlawful. He also complained about shortcomings in the proceedings aimed at challenging the lawfulness of his arrest. He invoked Articles 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention.

4 . The application had been communicated to the Government under Articles 5 § 1 and 5 § 4 of the Convention.

THE LAW

5 . The applicant complained about the unlawfulness of his arrest and the shortcomings in the proceedings aimed at challenging the lawfulness of his arrest. The complaints had been communicated under Articles 5 § 1 and 5 § 4 of the Convention.

6 . After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 12 June 2019 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration provided as follows:

“... The Government hereby wish to express – by way of the unilateral declaration – their acknowledgment of the violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention with regard to the applicant ’ s arrest and subsequent appeal against it. Simultaneously, they declare 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, as well as the Court ’ s case-law in similar cases ... The sum referred to above, which is to cove r 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 Government respectfully suggest that the above declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court ’ s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention ...”

7 . By a letter of 22 July 2019, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that that the sum proposed 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 s p. 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 Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the unlawfulness of one ’ s arrest (see, for example, Tomaszewscy v. Poland , no. 8933/05, 15 April 2014) . It has also addressed, in numerous cases, its practice concerning complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention regarding procedural guarantees of review under this provision (see, for example, Reinprecht v. Austria , no. 67175/01, ECHR 2005 ‑ XII; Grabowski v. Poland , no. 57722/12 , 30 June 2015).

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 Articles 5 § 1 and 5 § 4 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 Tim Eicke Deputy Registrar President