FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 60537/15 Leszek ORŁOWSKI against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 June 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 4 November 2015,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 14 September 2017 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 Leszek Orłowski , is a Polish national, who was born in 1977 and is detained in Poznań . He was represented before the Court by Mr W. Wlazło , a lawyer practising in Poznań .

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 complained about lengthy application of a “dangerous detainee” regime under Article 3 and unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

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 14 September 2017 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. They acknowledged a violation of the applicant ’ s rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the application of the “dangerous detainee” regime and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the length of the proceedings. They undertook to pay the applicant 14,000 Polish zlotys to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook 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. They further requested the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.

7. By a letter of 11 October 2017 the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration.

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 Article 3 as regards various aspects of application of the “dangerous detainee” regime and Article 6 § 1 about excessive length of the proceedings (see, for example, Piechowicz v. Poland , no. 20071/07 , §§ 166 ‑ 178, 17 April 2012, and Horych v. Poland , no. 13621/08 , §§ 93-103, 17 April 2012 , and Rutkowski and Others v. Poland , nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, §§ 125-160, 7 July 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 3 and 6 § 1 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 11 July 2019 .

Renata Degener Tim Eicke Deputy Registrar President