CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 2 avril 2013

.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 } .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 } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sF9B3189B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 73620/10 Sławomir 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   Sławomir Pawlak, is a Polish national, who was born in 1973 and lives in Elbląg. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms   J.   Chrzanowska of the 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 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 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 Gdańsk Regional Court of 4   August 2010 (case no.   I C 1751/09) and the 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 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   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 cases, as referred to in Article   37   §   1   (c) of the Convention. ...” The applicant did not 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, 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 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 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 is 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 rejected 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