FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 73620/10 S Å‚ awomir PAWLAK against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 April 2013 as a Committee composed of:

Päivi Hirvelä , President, Ledi Bianku , Paul Mahoney , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 December 2010,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 7 January 2013 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 SÅ‚awomir Pawlak , is a Polish national, who was born in 1973 and lives in ElblÄ…g .

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

The applicant complained mainly under Article 3 of the Convention about the overcrowding and inadequate living conditions during his detention.

The application had been communicated to the Government.

THE LAW

A. Complaint under Article 3 of the Convention

The applicant complained about the overcrowding and inadequate living conditions during his detention. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which provides as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 7 January 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 unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the systemic violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention, in particular overcrowding, as indentified by the Court in the pilot judgment given in the case of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) on 22 October 2009 (see paragraphs 135 and 147 et seq.).

Consequently, the Government declare that they offer to pay the applicant the amount of 20,000 PLN (twenty thousand Polish zlotys), which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the court ’ s case-law.

The sum referred to above includes PLN 13,700, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses of the proceedings before the Court and PLN 6,300, which is to cover costs and expenses of the proceedings before the domestic courts, which the applicant owes to the State Treasury on account of the judgments of the G dańsk Regional Court of 4 August 2010 (case no. I C 1751/09) and t he Gdańsk Court of Appeal of 25 January 2011 (case no. I ACa 1291/10) ( ... )

This sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursu ant 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 payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

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 c ases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

...”

The applicant did not comment on the Government ’ s unilateral declaration .

The Co urt 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 o ut 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 will examine 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).

The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland , its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 3 on account of overcrowding and inadequate detention conditions (see, for example, the pilot judgments in the cases of Orchowski v. Poland , no. 17885/04 , ECHR 2009 ‑ ... (extracts) and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland , no. 17599/05 , 22 October 2009 and the leading follow-up decision in the case of Łatak v. Poland ( dec .), no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010 ).

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 ).

B. Complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

The applicant ’ s complaint about the alleged procedural shortcomings in the proceedings for his early release from prison i s incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) (see Boulois v. Luxembourg [GC], no. 37575/04 , § 104, ECHR 2012) and must be reje cted in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration under Article 3 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Fatoş Aracı Päivi Hirvelä Deputy Registrar President