FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 20081/10 Bogdan HOFMAN against Poland

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

Päivi Hirvelä , President, Krzysztof Wojtyczek , Yonko Grozev , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 April 2010 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 17 April 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 Bogdan Hofman , is a Polish national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Ostrów Wielkopolski .

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

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the breach of right of access to court. He complained about the legal lawyer ’ s refusal to lodge a cassation appeal, the timing of that refusal and the procedural framework regulating access to the Supreme Court through legal aid in civil proceedings.

THE LAW

The applicant complained about the legal lawyer ’ s refusal to lodge a cassation appeal. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 17 April 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:

“ ...T he Government wish to express by way of the unilateral declaration their acknowledgement of the fact that in the present case the applicant was denied access to the court in determination of his civil rights and obligations within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in connection to the timing of the legal aid lawyer ’ s refusal to lodge a cassation appeal. Simultaneously, the Government declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of PLN 8,000 , which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court ’ s case law and the particular circumstances of the foregoing case. 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 tax es 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 of Human Rights. In the eve nt 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 the rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. ...”

By a letter of 9 June 2015 , the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the amount proposed was insufficient .

The Cour t 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”.

It also re iterates t hat 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 has examined the declaration carefully in t he 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).

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 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 15 October 2015 .

Fatoş Aracı Päivi Hirvelä Deputy Registrar President