CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 mai 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 } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .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. 24810/11 Tomasz ZIELIŃSKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21   May 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 28 March 2011, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Tomasz Zieliński, is a Polish national, who was born in 1973 and lives in Września. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The applicant complained essentially under Article 3 of the Convention about overcrowding and inadequate living conditions during his detention in Środa Wielkopolska Remand Centre and Gębarzewo Prison between 2006 and 2009. THE LAW On 14 December 2012 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I, Justyna Chrzanowska, Agent of the Government, declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay Mr Tomasz Zieliński, with a view to securing a   friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, PLN   10,000 (ten thousand Polish zlotys) to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be   chargeable to the applicant. The sum referred to above includes PLN 1,750 (one thousand seven hundred and fifty Polish zlotys) which is to cover the costs and expenses of the proceedings before the domestic courts, which are payable by the applicant to the State Treasury on account of the judgments of the Poznań Regional Court of 21 December 2010 (case no. XII C 490/10) and the Poznań Court of Appeal of 16 March 2011 (case no. I ACa 148/11). The payment is intended to provide the applicant with redress for the systemic violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of his detention, in particular overcrowding, as identified 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.). This sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases. 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 payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.” On 8 March 2013 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I, Tomasz Zieliński, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me, with a   view to securing a friendly settlement of the above ‑ mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, PLN   10,000 (ten thousand Polish zlotys) to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to me. The sum referred to above includes PLN 1,750 (one thousand seven hundred and fifty Polish zlotys) which is to cover the costs and expenses of the proceedings before the domestic courts, which are payable by me to the State Treasury on account of the judgments of the Poznań Regional Court of 21 December 2010 (case no. XII C 490/10) and the Poznań Court of Appeal of 16 March 2011 (case no. I ACa 148/11). I further note that the payment constitutes redress for the systemic violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of my detention, in particular overcrowding, as identified 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.). This sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of   the case.” The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to   justify a continued examination of the application. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.   Fatoş Aracı   Päivi Hirvelä   Deputy Registrar   President