FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 5268/16 Rafał TODORSKI against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 21 May 2019 as a Committee composed of:

Armen Harutyunyan , President, Krzysztof Wojtyczek , Pauliine Koskelo , judges, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 January 2016,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 9 July 2018 requesting the Court to strike a part of the application out of the list of cases and the applicant ’ s reply to that declaration,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government in respect of the remainder of the application;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. The applicant, Mr Rafał Todorski , is a Polish national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Ząbki .

2. By a letter dated 21 August 2018, the applicant notified the Court that he had changed his name to Rafał Danielewski . The Court advised the parties that it would continue processing the app lication under the case name of Todorski v Poland . This corresponded to the applicant ’ s name as referred to in the domestic court proceedings in issue as well as in his application lodged with the Court.

3. 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.

A. First set of proceedings

4. The criminal proceedings against the applicant concerning unspecified charges started on 31 December 2012 and are pending before the Pruszków District Court (case no. II K 458/12). The complaint under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaint about breach of the right to have a case examined in an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and in judicial proceedings without undue delay ( ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki - “the 2004 Act” lodged by the applicant was dismissed by the Warsaw Regional Court (case no. X S 95/15) on 10 September 2015.

B. Second set of proceedings

5. The criminal proceedings against the applicant concerning charges of theft and extortion started on 17 June 2009. In January and May 2011 the Warsaw District Court decided to join three set s of proceedings against the applicant and to examine jointly various criminal charges against him (cases nos. IV K 874/10, IV K 823/09 and IV K 1457/09) .

6. The applicant ’ s complaints under the 2004 Act were partially allowed by the Warsaw Regional Court on 15 March 2012 (case no. VI S 23/12) and 22 August 2012 (case no VI S 68/12). In sum the applicant was granted 4,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in just satisfaction.

7. On 21 November 2013 the Warsaw District Court convicted the applicant (case no. IV K 1457/09).

8. On 4 September 2014 the Warsaw Regional Court upheld the judgment (case no. VI Ka 204/14).

COMPLAINTS

9. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of two sets of criminal proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of redress for the excessive length of proceedings.

THE LAW

A. First set of proceedings

10. By letter dated 9 July 2018 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving partly the issues raised by the application . The Government acknowledged a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of the first set of criminal proceedings against the applicant and violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy, se curing sufficient redress for a violation of Article 6 § 1. They offered payment to the applicant of PLN 7,800 (seven thousand eight hundred). 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 sum referred to above is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, 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 b y the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on each of them, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default periods plus three percentage points. In addition, the Government made a declaration on general measures to be adopted in implementation of the Rutkowski and Others pilot judgment (see Rutkowski and Others v. Poland , nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, 7 July 2015). They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

11. On 28 August 2018 the Court received a letter from the applicant informing the Court that he had agreed to the terms of the Government ’ s declaration.

12. The Court finds that following the applicant ’ s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties.

13. The Court has already examined the unilateral declarations submitted by the Government in the pilot-judgment procedure in the case Rutkowski and Others (cited above). It found that, in view of the amounts proposed by the Government in their unilateral declarations on the individual measures of redress, there have been no circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which would require the continued examination of t he cases where a friendly settlement has been concluded (see Załuska and Rogalska v. Poland and 398 other applications ( dec. ), nos. 53491/10 and 72286/10, § 37, 20 June 2017). It has also been satisfied that, having regard to the general measures taken or to be taken in the future by the respondent Government, the settlement was based on “respect for human rights” as interpreted in the context of the pilot ‑ judgment procedure (see ibid, § 45).

14. It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties in so far as it relates to the above complaint . It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application.

15. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in so far as it relates to the above complaints .

B. Second set of proceedings

16. After the Government had been given notice of the application, they informed the Court that, as regards the second set of proceedings, the matter raised in it had been identical to the issues compl ained of in the application no. 56068/12, lodged by the same applicant.

17. The applicant did not comment on the Government ’ s submissions.

18. The Court notes that in the application no. 56068/12 the Government made a unilateral declaration acknowledging a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of proceedings and violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy, and offered payment of just satisfaction. The applicant accepted the declaration. On 20 June 2017 the Court took note of the friendly settlement between the parties and found it appropriate to strike the case out of the list of cases (see Załuska and Rogalska v. Poland and 398 other applications ( dec. ), nos. 53491/10 and 72286/10, §§ 32-47, 20 June 2017 ).

19. The Court thus accepts the Government ’ s argument that the subject matter of the present application is the same and had been covered by the unilate ral declaration in the case no. 56068/12 accepted by the Court on 20 June 2017 .

20. In the light of the above, the Court considers that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the application under Article 37 § 1 in fine . Accordingly, this part of the application should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention in respect to the first set of proceedings 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 (b) and (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 13 June 2019 .

Renata Degener Armen Harutyunyan Deputy Registrar President