CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 octobre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s13F94BE1 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.2pt } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; 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 } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s40E9DAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAA8DEB86 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s9D7F0777 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s68A4A370 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s66CC5A41 { width:26.02pt; display:inline-block } .sACF3BD4F { width:199.63pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 53121/11 Mariusz LEWANDOWSKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 16   October 2012 as a Committee composed of:   Päivi Hirvelä, President,   Ledi Bianku,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 August 2011, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 9 August 2012 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Mariusz Lewandowski, is a Polish national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Goleniów. He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Matusiak, a lawyer practising in Szczecin. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz, succeeded by   Ms   J.   Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant invoked Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention. In   substance he complained about the conditions of his detention in Łódź   Remand Centre. 2.     Invoking Article 6 the applicant complained about the outcome of civil proceedings he instituted. THE LAW A.     Conditions of detention The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention which provides as follows: Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” By letter dated 9 August 2012 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 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 violation of Article 3 of the Convention by failure to afford the applicant adequate conditions of his detention. Simultaneously, the Government declare that they are ready to pay to the applicant the sum of PLN   13,000, which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case law (see, inter alia, Nowak v. Poland, application no. 31835/11, decision of 29 May 2012, Ulatowski v. Poland, application no. 29848/11, decision of 6 March 2012). 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 period 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 ...” By letter of 28 June 2012 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant had rejected the Government’s friendly settlement proposal. The applicant failed to comment on the Government’s 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 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, its practice concerning complaints about the conditions of detention (see, for example, Orchowski v.   Poland, no. 17885/04 ; Norbert Sikorski v. Poland, no.   17599/05 and Łatak v.   Poland (dec.), no.   52070/08). 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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list. B.     Remaining complaint The applicant further invoked Article 6 of the Convention and, in substance, complained about the outcome of the civil proceedings which he instituted against the State Treasury and Łódź Remand Centre for infringement of personal rights. However, the Court considers that this complaint discloses no appearance of any violation of the provisions of the Convention. It follows that the remainder of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in respect of the complaint under Article 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 so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37   §   1   (c) of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Fatoş Aracı   Päivi Hirvelä   Deputy Registrar   President