FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 1694/14 Łukasz Maksymilian BRYSKE against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 15 May 2018 as a Committee composed of:

Aleš Pejchal, President, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Jovan Ilievski, judges,

and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 December 2013,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 12 February 2018 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 Łukasz Maksymilian Bryske, is a Polish national, who was born in 1983 and lives in Bydgoszcz. He was represented before the Court by Mr I. Wilczek, a lawyer practising in Bydgoszcz.

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

3. The applicant ’ s daughter was born in 2009. Following a break-up of his relationship with the child ’ s mother in 2010, the applicant was granted a right of contact. This contact arrangement was subsequently modified in 2012 and 2013. However, despite fines that were imposed on the child ’ s mother, the contact orders were not enforced on numerous occasions.

4. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention about delays in the proceedings relating to enforcement of contact orders and alleged that the authorities had failed to take measures necessary to assure respect for his family life.

5. On 12 May 2017 the application was communicated to the Government .

THE LAW

6. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 12 February 2018 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 that the applicant ’ s right to respect for his family life provided for in Article 8 of the Convention was violated. Simultaneously, the Government declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of PLN 15,000 (fifteen thousand Polish zloty) 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 (see, Jączek v. Poland (dec.), no. 13603/13, 27 September 2016). The sum referred to above, which 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 by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 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 periods plus three percentage points.

8. The Government would 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 lists of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.”

9. By a letter of 21 March 2018, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration as the amount of just satisfaction proposed by the Government was too low.

10. 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”.

11. 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.

12. 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).

13. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland , its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see, for example, J Ä… czek v. Poland cited above and Stasik v. Poland , no. 21823/12 , 6 October 2015).

14. 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)).

15. 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 ).

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 8 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 7 June 2018 .

             Renata Degener AleÅ¡ Pejchal              Deputy Registrar President