FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 52224/15 Dariusz OSIŃSKI against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7 February 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Nona Tsotsoria , President , Krzysztof Wojtyczek , Marko Bošnjak , judges ,

and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 October 2015,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 20 October 2016 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 Dariusz Osiński , is a Polish national, who was born in 1972 and is detained in Warsaw. He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Pieńkowska-Rutkowska , a lawyer practising in Gdansk.

2. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the “dangerous detainee” regime which had been imposed on him from 11 April 2013 to 11 June 2015. He further complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the decisions of the prison commission extending the application of the regime.

3. The application had been communicated to the Polish Government (“the Government”), who were represented by their Agent, Ms Justyna Chrzanowska , of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs .

4. After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, by letter dated 5 May 2016 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application.

5. They acknowledged a violation of the applicant ’ s rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention. They undertook to pay the applicant 25,000 Polish zlotys (approximately 5,800 euros) 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 out this part of the application.

6. On 29 November 2016, the Court received a letter from the applicant informing the Court that he agreed to the terms of the Government ’ s declaration.

THE LAW

7. Having regard to the applicant ’ s complaint about the imposition of the dangerous detainee regime under Article 3 of the Convention, 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.

8. 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 this part of the application.

9. In view of the above, it is app r opriate to strike the case out of the list in so far as it relates to the above complaint.

10. Relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention the applicant further complained about the manner in which the prison commission had applied and extended the regime, and the alleged ineffectiveness of his appeals against the commission ’ s decisions. The Government did not comment on this matter.

11. The Court observes that at the heart of the applicant ’ s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention lied not only the prolonged imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime but also the procedure for reviewing his status (see Prus v. Poland , no. 5136/11 , § 43, 12 January 2016 ). In the light of its finding under Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraphs 7-9 above) the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine either the admissibility or the merits of this complaint (see, mutati s mutandis , Eze v. Romania , no. 80529/13, § 65, 21 June 2016).

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention in so far as it relates to the complaint about the lengthy imposition of the “ dangerous detainee ” regime on the applicant ;

Decides that there is no need to examine the admissibility or the merits of the complaint under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 2 March 2017 .

Andrea Tamietti Nona Tsotsoria              Deputy Registrar President