CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 1 octobre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; 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. 20469/11 Zbigniew OKRZESIK against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1   October 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 7 March 2011, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 8 May 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: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Zbigniew Okrzesik, is a Polish national, who was born in 1950 and is curently detained in Cieszyn Prison. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J.   Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the overcrowding and inadequate living conditions during his detention. The application had been communicated to the Government. COMPLAINTS The applicant invoked Articles 3, 5 and 17 of the Convention and complained in substance about the conditions of his detention in Bytom and Bielsko-Biała Remand Centres and Cieszyn and Racibórz Prisons. THE LAW A.     Conditions of detention in Cieszyn Prison The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention, in particular, about the overcrowding and poor sanitary conditions. 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 8 May 2013 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 fact that the applicant’s conditions of 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.), were not compatible with Article 3 of the Convention. In these circumstances, and having particular regard to violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s conditions of detention, the Court’s pilot judgment in the case Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) as well as domestic jurisprudence submitted to this case, the Government declare that they offer to pay the applicant the amount of PLN   17,600 (seventeen thousand six hundred Polish zlotys) which is 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, which they consider to be reasonable in the present circumstances of the case. The sum referred to above includes the sum of PLN 6,100 (six thousand and one hundred 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 Bielsko-Biała Regional Court of 23 June 2010 (case no. I C 306/09) and the Katowice Court of Appeal of 7 December 2010 (case   no.   I ACa 777/10). The sum of PLN 17,600 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 ...” In a letter of 17 July 2013 the applicant did not agree with the Government’s proposal. 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 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 complaints The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of detention in Bytom Remand Centre (from 31 January to 16   March 2006) and in Racibórz Prison (from 16 March to 2 August 2006) have been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. The applicant further complained, invoking Articles 3, 5 and 17 of the Convention that during his detention in Bielsko-Biała Remand Centre (from 2 August to 15 December 2006) he was detained in the overcrowded conditions and that the medical care provided to him was inadequate. During the aplicant’s term in Bielsko-Biała Remand Centre he was detained in an infirmary where, at least from 2 November to 15 December 2006, the problem of overcrowding did not occur. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded insofar the period from 2   November to 15 December 2006 is concerned and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. The complaint regarding alleged overcrowding during the period from 2   August to 2 November 2006 has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention. The applicant’s complaint about allegedly inadequate medical care in Bielsko-Biała Remand Centre is wholly unsubstantiated. 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, concerning the conditions of detention in the Cieszyn Prison, 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