FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 42954/04 Antoni DUDZIK against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 21 January 2014 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 9 November 2004 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 10 October 2013 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Antoni Dudzik , is a Polish national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Chorzelów .

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

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

On 20 July 2001 the Social Security Board ( ZakÅ‚ad UbezpieczeÅ„ SpoÅ‚ecznych – “the SSB” ) granted the applicant the right to an early ‑ retirement pension for persons raising children who required constant care (the so-called “EWK” pension) in the net amount of around 1,290 Polish zlotys (PLN).

On 19 September 2002 the SSB reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to award the applicant the right to the EWK pension. The payment of the pension was discontinued with immediate effect.

The applicant appealed against these decisions. On 10 March 2004 his appeal was finally dismissed by the Rzeszów Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ).

On 22 June 2004 the Supreme Court ( Sąd Najwyższy ) refused to entertain the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant .

COMPLAINTS

The app licant complained under Article 6 of the Convention a nd, in substance, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the reopening of the social security proceedings which had resulted in the revocation of his right to the EWK pension.

THE LAW

In the instant case the gist of the applicant ’ s complaints is that the decisi on to divest him of his early-retirement pension amounted to an unjustified deprivation of property. Consequently, the application fal ls to be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows :

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.”

By letter dated 10 October 2013 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 applica tion 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 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention stemming from the sudden revocation of the applicant ’ s EWK pension which placed an excessive burden on the applicant incompatible with that provision.

Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euro s ) which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court ’ s case law. 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 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 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 (...)”

T he applicant did not comment on the Government ’ s 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 carefully examined 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. 263 07/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003 ‑ VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and SulwiÅ„ska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03).

The Court has established in a number of cases brought against Poland its practice concerning complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the reopening of the social security proceedings which had resulted in the revocation of the applicant ’ s right to the so-called “EWK” pension (see, among other examples, Moskal v. Poland , no. 10373/05, 15 September 2009; Antoni Lewandowski v. Poland , no. 38459/03 , 2 October 2012 ).

As regards the issues raised by the applicant under other provisions of the Convention, in all the previous similar cases examined to date the Court has held th at such complaints did not require a separate examination (see, for example, Moskal , cited above, §§ 83 and 94; Antoni Lewandowski , cited above, § 88). It sees no reason to depart from this conclusion in the present case.

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 examinat ion 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 examinat ion of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to 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 Artic le 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Fatoş Aracı Ledi Bianku Deputy Registrar President