CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 9 mars 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA04294B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid } .sE41EF361 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF8DCB537 { width:16.53pt; display:inline-block } .s25347E17 { width:182.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 50178/08 by Zbigniew LORBIECKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on   9   March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Ljiljana Mijović,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ján Šikuta,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Mihai Poalelungi, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 October 2008, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 8 October 2009 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: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Zbigniew Lorbiecki, is a Polish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Starogard Gdański. He was represented before the Court by Ms M.   Sykulska-Przybysz, a lawyer practising in Tczew. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   J.   Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 1 June 2006 the applicant was charged with uttering threats. On 30 August 2006 the Kościerzyno District Court gave a decision and discontinued the proceedings against the applicant. The court found it established that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. However, he could not be held criminally responsible as he had been suffering from a mental disorder. It further referred to the opinion of experts and ordered that the applicant be placed in a psychiatric hospital in Starogard Szczeciński. On 23 October 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court upheld that decision. The applicant was admitted to a hospital on a later unknown date. On 3 January 2008 the Koscierzyno District Court gave a decision and held, without specifying any details, that in view of the experts' opinion it was necessary to continue the applicant's detention in a psychiatric hospital. The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal. On 4 March 2008 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed his appeal. The court considered that according to the experts' opinion the applicant's detention in a psychiatric hospital was necessary. On 25 March 2008 the District Court gave a decision and extended the applicant's detention in the psychiatric hospital. The court considered that, although the experts' opinion showed that the applicant's condition had improved, it was still necessary to continue his internment. The court did not refer to any details as regards the applicant's health. On 3 June 2008 the Gdansk Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. The court repeated the reasons given by the District Court. On 23 June 2008 the applicant lodged an application with the District Court, asking to be released from the hospital. On 17 July 2008 the District Court refused his request, repeating the reasoning given in the decision of 25 March 2008. On 28 July 2008 the applicant appealed. On 20 October 2008 the Regional Court held a hearing. Despite his request to that effect, the applicant was not brought to the hearing. The court considered that the applicant's lawyer's presence was enough. It appears that on the same date the court refused to release the applicant from the hospital. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant alleged that his applications for release from the hospital had been unsuccessful, that the proceedings had been lengthy and that the District Court had repeatedly referred to the same reasons. 2.     The applicant further complained about the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him. 3.     Lastly, he complained about his arrest and the criminal proceedings brought against him in 1996. THE LAW A.     Complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings by which he sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in a psychiatric hospital. The complaint falls to be examined under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which, provides as follows: “Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.” By letter dated 8 October 2009 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They further requested the Court to strike out this part of the application 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 fact that the applicant's right to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in the psychiatric hospital in the proceedings (...) [as provided by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention] was restricted. In these circumstances and having particular regard to the ... facts of the case, the   Government declare that they offer to pay to the applicant the amount of   PLN   4,200, 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 from 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 for the Protection of Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. (...) The Government would respectfully suggest that the above declaration 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.” In a letter of 5 November 2009 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government's declaration was unacceptably low . Article 37 of the Convention provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application or part thereof 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”. In certain circumstances, it may strike out an application or part of 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 the declaration carefully 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 length of the proceedings by which a persons seeks to challenge the lawfulness of his detention (see, for example, Baranowski v. Poland , no.   28358/95, ECHR   2000 ‑ III; Lewicki v. Poland , no. 28993/05, 6 October 2009; Pyrak   v.   Poland , no.   54476/00, 12 February 2008). 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 this part 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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list. B.     Remaining complaints The applicant further objected to the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him. Under Article   35 §   1 of the Convention, the Court may only deal with the matter within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken. The criminal proceedings against the applicant were   terminated on 30 August 2006, which is more than six months before the date on which he submitted this complaint to the Court. It follows that the complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention. The applicant further complained about his arrest and criminal proceedings in 1996. The Court considers that this complaint has been likewise introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   1   and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court   Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government's declaration in respect of the complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides by a majority to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (c) of the Convention; Declares unanimously the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Lawrence Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President