FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 41192/12 Robert RUDNIK against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 17 March 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Nona Tsotsoria , President, Paul Mahoney , Krzysztof Wojtyczek , judges,

and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 May 2012 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 16 December 2014 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 Robert Rudnik , is a Polish national, who was born in 1971 and is detained in Warsaw .

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

The application had been communicated to the Government .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On an unspecified date the applicant was detained on remand in connection with criminal charges against him. The applicant has been involved in several sets of criminal proceedings.

On 18 May 2006 the B iałystok District Court decided to detain the applicant on remand in another set of proceedings, on suspicion of murder, trafficking in arms, and production and trafficking in drugs acting in an organised criminal group.

On 30 October 2012 the Warsaw Regional Court (V K 164/08) convicted the applicant of fourteen counts of various offences including two counts of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On the same day his detention was further extended. This conviction was also upheld on 30 September 2013 by the Warsaw Court of Appeal. On 30 October 2014 the Supreme Court made a minor amendment to the judgment.

In the meantime in another set of criminal proceedings, o n 7 February 2012 the Warsaw Regional Court (VK 87/05) convicted the applicant, and seven other co-accused, of robberies acting in an organised criminal group. The applicant was sentenced to six years and six months ’ imprisonment. This conviction was upheld on appeal on 4 July 2013.

During the period of his detention on remand in both sets of proceedings described above the applicant served prison sentence ordered by the Wyszków District Court on 27 July 2009 (II K 142/09). In particular, he served the sentence of nine years of imprisonment between 2 February 2004 and 11 March 2008 and between 23 March and 9 August 2009.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of his detention on remand imposed on 18 May 2006 .

THE LAW

After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 15 December 2014 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 unreasonable duration of the applicant ’ s detention on remand within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention . Simultaneously, the Government declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of PLN 12,000, 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 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 th at period until settlement, at the rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage poi nts.

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

By a letter of 9 January 2015 , the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration.

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 examine d 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 of a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention as regards the unreasonable length of pre ‑ trial detention ( Kauczor v. Poland , no. 45219/06, 3 February 2009 with further references) .

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).

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 9 April 2015 .

Fatoş Aracı Nona Tsotsoria Deputy Registrar President