FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 65351/13 Henryk POLKOWSKI against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 22 October 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Nona Tsotsoria , President, Ledi Bianku , Paul Mahoney , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 September 2013 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 30 July 2015 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

The applicant, Mr Henryk Polkowski , is a Polish national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Rumia . He was represented before the Court by Mr K. Stogowski , a lawyer practising in Gdansk .

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

The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention .

The application had been communicated to the Government .

THE LAW

The applicant complained about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention . He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by letter of 30 July 2015 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.

The declaration provided as follows:

“The Government hereby wish to express – by way of the unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention due to unreasonable length of the applicant ’ s detention on remand. Simultaneously, the Government declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of PLN 20,000 (twenty thousand Polish zlotys) which they consider to be reasonable in the light of individual circumstances of the case at issue, as well as the Court ’ s jurisprudence in similar cases (see among others, Wielgus v. Poland , application no. 62120/10, decision of 27 March 2012). The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as cost 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.”

By letter dated 16 September 2015 , the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the sum proposed was too law as to the damage he suffered.

The Court recalls 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”.

It also recalls 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.

To this end, the Court examined carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC ], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o . v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).

The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland , its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention inter alia in cases of Gołek v. Poland , no. 31330/02, §§ 27-33, 25 April 2006 and Celeje wski v. Poland , no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 May 2006 .

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)).

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 ).

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).

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 5 § 3 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 12 November 2015 .

FatoÅŸ Aracı Nona Tsotsoria              Deputy Registrar President