FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 2037/14 Kazimierz WOŁKOWSKI and Krystian JACYNO against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 14 September 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Ledi Bianku , President, Paul Mahoney , Krzysztof Wojtyczek , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 December 2013 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 16 April 2015 , and rectified on 3 June 2015 , requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases , and the applicants ’ reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicants, Mr Kazimierz Wołkowski (“the first applicant”) and Mr Krystian Jacyno (“the second applicant”) , are Polish nationals, who were born in 1960 and 1979 respectively and live in Lidzbark Warmiński . They were represented before the Court by Mr A. Bodnar , succeeded by Mr P. Kładoczny , lawyer s with the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, a non-governmental organisation based in Warsaw .

The Polish Government (“the Government”) wer e represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

On 1 March 2012 police officers of the Lidzbark Warmiński District Police Station arrived at the first applicant ’ s home and arrested him on suspicion of burglary . He was taken to the police station for questioning. The first applicant alleged that he had been hit with a truncheon on the soles of his feet. He was held at the police station overnight because he refused to confess to a burglary. The following morning the questioning and the beating on the feet continued in the presence of four police officers. The first applicant was released on 2 March 2012 a t about 4 p.m.

The second applicant was arrested on 2 March 2012 and taken to the Police Station. The police officers told him that he had committed a burglary. The second applicant alleged that he had been slapped by a police officer and told to confess. He was told to sign some unspecified documents. Then, other police officers entered the room when the questioning was taking place. The second applicant alleged that he had been hit on his feet, legs, kidneys and head. The questioning and beating lasted from 12 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. Subsequently, the second applicant was released.

On 21 March 2012 the Lidzbark Warmiński District Prosecutor ’ s Office informed the second applicant that it opened an investigation into the abuse of authority by the police officers. Afterwards, the investigation was transferred to the Bartoszyce District Prosecutor ’ s Office.

On 17 July 2012 the District Prosecutor ordered a forensic opinion on the injuries sustained by the applicants. According to the forensic expert, the first applicant had extensive hematomas on his feet which could have resulted from hitting the soles of feet with a truncheon. The expert identified similar injuries on the second applicant. In addition, the second applicant had a hematoma near his left eye. This injury could have resulted from slapping. The expert found that it was unlikely that the injuries could be self-inflicted.

On 31 October 2012 the Junior District Prosecutor discontinued the investigation into the case of abuse of authority by the police officers and the use of violence to extract confession (Article 231 § 1 in conjunction with Article 246 of the Criminal Code). The prosecutor concluded that the applicants had been beaten by the police officers. However, it was not possible to determine which particular police officer or officers had committed the above offences.

On 20 November 2012 the applicants appealed. They argued that the investigation had been carried out ineffectively. The prosecutor ’ s decision was quashed.

On 19 June 2013 the J unior District Prosecutor again discontinued the investigation. The prosecutor concluded t hat the police officers had ill ‑ treated the applicants. However, the prosecutor was unable to determine which particular police officer or officers had committed these offences.

The applicants allege d a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in its substantive aspect. They claim ed to have been subjected to torture on account of severe beating by the police officers who aimed to extract confession from them. The applicants further complain ed under the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention that the authorities had not carried out an effective investi gation.

The application was communicated to the Government.

On 9 April 2015 the Bartoszyce District Prosecutor resumed the criminal investigation . The investigation appears to be pending.

THE LAW

A fter unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, by letter dated 16 April 2015 , rectified by a letter of 3 June 201 5 , the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issues 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 hereby wish to express – by way of the unilateral declaration – their acknowledgment for the fact that the applicants have been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention on account of beating by the police officers and failure to conduct effective investigation into their ill-treatment by the authorities. Simultaneously, the Government declare that they are ready to pay the applicant s the sum of EUR 1 5,000 (EUR 7,500 for each applicant) which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court ’ s case law in similar cases (see, inter alia, Karbowniczek v. Poland , application no. 22339/08, judgment of 27 September 2011 ; Polanowski v. Poland , application no. 16381/05, judgment of 27 April 2010 ; Wiktorko v. Poland , application no. 14012/02, judgment of 30 March 2009). 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 Convention. 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.

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

On 18 June 2015 , the Court received a letter from the applicants informing the Court that they had not objected to the terms of the Government ’ s declaration.

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

It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. 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.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 8 October 2015 .

Fatoş Aracı Ledi Bianku Deputy Registrar President