CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 décembre 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 } .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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFFD057F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s51F2D829 { width:208.44pt; display:inline-block } .s92A1A400 { width:0.97pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 8553/09 by Sławomir NIKOŁAJUK against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on   14   December 2010 as a Committee composed of:   Ljiljana Mijović, President,   Ledi Bianku,   Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 February 2009, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 19 October 2010 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 Sławomir Nikołajuk, is a Polish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Bielsk Podlaski. The Polish Government (“the   Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of   the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as   follows. On 13 February 2002 the applicant was dismissed from work. Earlier he   had been absent from work on sickness leave for a longer period of time. On an unspecified date at the beginning of 2003 he instituted proceedings before the competent administrative authorities to have his illness recognised as being of an occupational character. On 14 May 2003 the Local Health Inspector in Bielsk Podlaski (Powiatowy Inspektor Sanitarny) decided that there was no causal link between the applicant’s sickness, the tasks he had been performing and his general working conditions. The applicant appealed. On 26 May 2003 the Regional Health Inspector in Białystok ( Wojewódzki Inspektor Sanitarny ) upheld the contested decision. The applicant appealed. On 27 November 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court in Białystok ( ośrodek zamiejscowy ) quashed the decision of 26 May 2003. On 12 March 2004 the Regional Health Inspector in Białystok after having re-examined the decision of 14 May 2003 found no grounds in   support of the alleged invalidity and again upheld the decision. The applicant appealed. On 17 June 2004 the Regional Administrative Court in Białystok ( Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny ) quashed the decision of 12 March 2004. It found that the proceedings concerning the issuance of the decision were tainted with formal shortcomings. On 9 August 2006 the Local Health Inspector in Bielsk Podlaski found no grounds to have the applicant’s illness recognised as being of   an   occupational character. The applicant appealed. On 25 September 2006 the Regional Health Inspector in Białystok upheld the contested decision. The applicant appealed. On 6 February 2007 the Regional Administrative Court in Białystok dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court ( Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny ). On 11 September 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the contested judgment as well as the decision of 25 September 2006 and remitted the case back for reconsideration. On 30 November 2007 the Regional Health Inspector in Białystok quashed the decision of 9 August 2006. On 27 December 2007 the Local Health Inspector requested the Regional Occupational Health Centre in Białystok ( Wojewódzki Ośrodek Medycyny Pracy ) to carry out a new medical examination of the applicant. On 8 February 2008 the applicant filed with the Local Health Inspector in Bielsk Podlaski a complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings in his case. By decisions of 28 February and 27 March 2008 the Local Health Inspector in Bielsk Podlaski further extended the time-limit for the issuance of a decision until 1 May 2008. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed as   ill ‑ founded on 8 April 2008 by the Regional Health Inspector in   Białystok. On 16 April 2008 the results of the medical examination were submitted to the Local Health Inspector in Bielsk Podlaski. In consequence the time ‑ limit to have a decision issued was extended until 1 June 2008. On 24 April 2008 the applicant filed with the Regional Administrative Court a complaint about the inactivity of the Local Health Inspector in   Bielsk Podlaski. On 22 July 2008 the Regional Administrative Court in Białystok found the applicant’s complaint to be well-founded and ordered the Local Health Inspector in Bielsk Podlaski to issue a decision within 30 days. On 15 October 2008 the Local Health Inspector in Bielsk Podlaski issued a decision refusing to recognise the applicant’s illness as being of   an   occupational character. The applicant appealed. On 19 January 2009 the Regional Health Inspector in Białystok upheld the decision of 15 October 2008. The applicant appealed. On 21 May 2009 the Regional Administrative Court in Białystok quashed the decisions of 15 October 2008 and 19 January 2009. On 13 November 2009 the applicant filed a complaint about the inactivity of the Local Health Inspector in Bielsk Podlaski with the Regional Health Inspector in Białystok. On 17 December 2009 the latter Inspector found the complaint to   be   well-founded and fixed a new time-limit to have a decision issued, namely 31 January 2010. On 29 January 2010 the Local Health Inspector in Bielsk Podlaski decided that there were no grounds to have the applicant’s illness recognised as being of an occupational character. The applicant appealed. It appears that the proceedings are currently still pending. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and available remedies concerning inactivity on the part of   administrative authorities are described in the Court’s decision in the case of Olędzki and Olędzka v. Poland (dec.), no. 13715/03, 4 January 2008. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings. THE LAW The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings. He relied on Article 6 §   1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as   follows: Article 6 § 1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to   a   ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” By letter dated 18 October 2010 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: “(...) the Government hereby wish to express – by way of the unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the infringement of the applicant’s right of access to   a   court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, due to excessive length of   the administrative proceedings in his case. Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicant the sum of   PLN   7,200 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 damage as well 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 the three percentage points. The Government would 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.” In a letter of 17 November 2010 the applicant in substance expressed the view that he could not accept redress proposed in the Government’s declaration and wished that the examination of the case be continued . 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 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   one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v.   France [GC], no.   30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v.   Italy [GC], no.   64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006 ‑ ....; Majewski v.   Poland , no.   52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v.   Poland , no.   56026/00, 10 May 2007). 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)). 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 6 § 1 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.   Fatoş Aracı   Ljiljana Mijović   Deputy Registrar President