CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 octobre 2017

.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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sFCAD7A46 { width:199.27pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA455ED1B { margin-left:14.2pt; font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s51D76BFA { margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-family:Arial }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 13582/13 Janusz DUDEK and Others against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17   October 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Aleš Pejchal, President,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Jovan Ilievski, judges, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 January 2013, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 6 July and 3 November 2016 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ replies to these declarations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 2.     The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     All the applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of proceedings in their cases and under Article   13 of the Convention about the lack of, or insufficient, redress for the excessive length of proceedings granted to them by the national courts. 4.     On 7 July 2015 the application was communicated to the Polish Government pursuant to Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, by virtue of the ninth operative provision of the pilot-judgment given in the case of Rutkowski and Others v. Poland (see Rutkowski and Others v. Poland , nos.   72287/10 and 2 others, §§ 223-228 and the ninth operative provision, 7   July 2015). 5.     By letters dated 6 July and 3 November 2016 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. The Government acknowledged a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of proceedings in the case and violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy, securing sufficient redress for a violation of Article   6 § 1. They offered payment of sums specified in respect of each applicant in a table appended to their declaration. The Government further undertook to adopt a range of general measures in respect of other persons who were victims of similar violations or might be affected by similar violations in the future. The sums referred to above, which are specified in the appendix to the decision, are to cover any pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. They 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 these sums within the said three ‑ month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on each of them, 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. In addition, the Government made a declaration on general measures to be adopted in implementation of the Rutkowski and Others pilot judgment (see Załuska and Rogalska v.   Poland and 398 other applications (dec.), nos. 53491/10 and 72286/10, §§   23 ‑ 25, 20   June 2017). They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. THE LAW A.     As regards the third applicant who accepted the Government’s unilateral proposal as to payment of just satisfaction 6.     On 13 December 2016, the Court received a letter from the third applicant informing the Court that she had agreed to the terms of the Government’s declaration. 7.     The Court finds that following the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the third applicant and the Government. 8.     Article 39 of the Convention, conferring on the Court the power to strike a case out of its list of cases in the event of a friendly settlement, provides: “If a friendly settlement is effected, the Court shall strike the case out of its list by means of a decision which shall be confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.” 9.     The Court has already examined the first group of 400 unilateral declarations submitted by the Government in the pilot-judgment procedure in the case Rutkowski and Others , cited above. It found that, in view of the amounts proposed by the Government in their unilateral declarations on the individual measures of redress, there have been no circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which would require the continued examination of the cases where a   friendly settlement has been concluded (see Załuska and Rogalska (dec.) , cited above, § 37). It has also been satisfied that, having regard to the general measures taken or to be taken in the future by the respondent Government, the settlement was based on “respect for human rights” as interpreted in the context of the pilot-judgment procedure (see ibid , § 45). 10.     The same conclusions apply to the instant case. The Court therefore 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. B.     As regards the first and the second applicant who refused the Government’s proposal 11.     By letters of 1 August and 7 December 2016 the first and the second applicant indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. 12.     The Court reiterates 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”. 13.     It also reiterates 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 applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued. 14.     To this end, the Court has 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 objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no.   11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no.   28953/03, 18   September   2007). 15.     The conclusions reached by the Court on admissions and undertakings contained in the Government’s declarations in the first group of 400 cases submitted in the pilot-judgment procedure apply to the present case (see Załuska and Rogalska (dec.) , cited above, §§ 51-53). 16.     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)). 17.     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 ). 18.     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). C.     Conclusion 19.     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 in respect of the third applicant out of its list of cases in accordance with Articles 37 § 1 (b) and 39 § 3 of the Convention; Decides to strike the application in respect of the first and the second applicant out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 16 November 2017. Renata Degener   Aleš Pejchal Deputy Registrar   President Appendix Janusz DUDEK is a Polish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Kielce; the amount proposed in unilateral declaration: PLN 36,560;   Andrzej DUDEK is a Polish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Kielce; the amount proposed in unilateral declaration: PLN 36,560;   Krystyna DUDEK is a Polish national who was born in 1935 and lives in Kielce; the amount proposed in unilateral declaration: PLN 39,750.