CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 22 septembre 2015

.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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s6667B4BF { width:213.78pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION This version was rectified on 22 December 2015 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.   Application no. 17320/14 Krzysztof Karol NOWIŃSKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 22   September 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Päivi Hirvelä, President,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Yonko Grozev, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 February 2014, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 23 February 2015 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 Krzysztof Karol Nowiński, is a Polish national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Kamińsk. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Połacieniec, a lawyer practising in Warszawa. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Justyna Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about overcrowding and inadequate living conditions during his detention in in several prison facilities from 2 August 1996 to 13 April 2010, inter alia, in Warszawa – Białołęka, Warszawa – Mokotów, Bydgoszcz, Sanok and Gdańsk Remand Centres and Włocławek, Potulice and Sztum Prisons. The application had been communicated to the Government . THE LAW After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 23   February 2015 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 for the fact that the applicant has been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of his detention, in particular overcrowding. Simultaneously, the Government declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of PLN 29,400 [1] which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case law in similar cases (see, inter alia, Orchowski v.   Poland, application no.   17885/04, judgment of 22 October 2009; Norbert Sikorski v. Poland , application no. 17599/05, judgment of 22 October 2009). The sum referred to above, which is to cover any and all 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 Convention. 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.” By a letter of 25 March 2015, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the amount proposed had not been satisfactory. 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 examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection)[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, 18   September   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)). 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 ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4   March 2008). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. 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 the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.   Done in English and notified in writing on 15 October 2015.   Fatoş Aracı   Päivi Hirvelä Deputy Registrar   President     [1] Rectified on 22 December 2015: the text was: “(…) the sum of PLN 24,900 (…)”.