CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 juillet 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sFCAD7A46 { width:199.27pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5FFF0A72 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:4pt }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 19320/09 Joanna SIWIŃSKA against Poland and 28 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10 July 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Aleš Pejchal, President,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Jovan Ilievski, judges, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 13 July and 6 October 2017 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration, 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 applications were 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 on 13 July and 6 October 2017 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. In each case the Government acknowledged a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of proceedings 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 declarations. 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 undertook 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 applications in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. THE LAW 6.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. A.     Length of proceedings 7.     On various dates in 2017 twenty-two applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations. The remaining six applicants made no comments on the Government’s unilateral declarations. 8.     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”. 9.     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. 10.     To this end, the Court has examined the declarations 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). 11.     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). 12.     Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, 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 applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)). 13.     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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). 14.     Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications 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). 15.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. B.     Other alleged violations of the Convention 16.     The applicants listed in the attached Appendix under nos: 19320/09, 19785/11, 22359/11, 63767/14, 66932/14, 3465/15, 10939/15, also raised a   number of complains under Articles   5   §   3 and 6 of the Convention. 17.     Having regard to the facts of the case, the Government’s declarations, and its decision to strike out the complaints under Articles   6   §   1 and 13 of the Convention, the Court considers that the main legal question raised in the present application has been resolved. It concludes, therefore, that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the applicants’ remaining complaints under Articles 5 § 3 and 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Kamil Uzun v. Turkey , no.   37410/97, §   64, 10 May 2007). For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in its part concerning the complaints of unreasonable length of civil and criminal proceedings in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention; Holds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Articles 5 § 3 and 6 of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 6 September 2018. Renata Degener   Aleš Pejchal Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by Amount proposed in Unilateral Declaration   19320/09 06/04/2009 Joanna SIWIŃSKA 22/12/1960 Warszawa Agnieszka ZEMKE-GÓRECKA PLN 11,280   61701/09 10/12/2008 Zdzisław Eugeniusz PIEŚCIKOWSKI 16/11/1953 Poznań     PLN 5,520 for the first set of proceedings and PLN 2,610 for the second set of proceedings   19785/11 17/02/2011 Janusz BUDZIAK 17/11/1964 Nowy Sącz     PLN 3,900   22359/11 17/03/2011 ArturNIEDŹWIEDŹ 14/02/1971 Gdańsk Przeróbka     PLN 11,900   24624/11 07/04/2011 Andrzej RYSZKA 30/10/1947 Sosnowiec   Janusz MARGASIŃSKI PLN 7,800   36134/11 04/05/2011 Dariusz KARWOWSKI 13/03/1971 Warszawa     PLN 12,430 for the first set of proceedings and PLN 17,300 for the second set of proceedings   59236/12 29/08/2012 Marian MAKOWSKI 27/08/1941 Radom   Tomasz BURDA PLN 7,980   59237/12 29/08/2012 Jan JANIK 01/11/1948 Radom   Tomasz BURDA PLN 7,980   60129/12 30/08/2012 Andrzej KRZYMIANOWSKI 15/04/1967 Bielsko-Biała     PLN 22,370             67847/12 26/09/2012 Grzegorz Jacek SKOWROŃSKI 10/05/1975 Brzeg     PLN 9,660             70498/12 31/01/2013 Bartłomiej MAREK 31/08/1972 Strzelce Opolskie     PLN 19,020             74804/13 28/10/2013 Grzegorz DUBLAS 08/11/1972 Gdańsk     PLN 9,660             77967/13 03/12/2013 Gracjan WAWRZYNIAK 13/01/1981 Skoki     PLN 12,270             39795/14 20/05/2014 Beata Urszula PRUS 06/10/1970 Chełm     PLN 12,510             40409/14 22/05/2014 Dariusz GĄSIOROWSKI 24/03/1968 Chełm     PLN 12,510             41186/14 26/05/2014 Jerzy FEDORCZUK 23/04/1962 Chełm     PLN 9,370             41204/14 20/05/2014 Aneta Katarzyna WALCZUK 28/11/1970 Dorohusk     PLN 9,080             41573/14 26/05/2014 Dorota GĄSIOROWSKA 16/03/1969 Chełm     PLN 9,370             41976/14 23/05/2014 Anna SAWICKA-POTURAJ 14/06/1971 Chełm     PLN 12,510             41984/14 23/05/2014 Stanisław SZTUBER 31/01/1967 Swierze   PLN 12,510             41993/14 26/05/2014 Grzegorz ŚWIŚ 12/04/1970 Chełm   PLN 9,370             50631/14 11/08/2014 Przemysław OSIŃSKI 21/01/1973 Gdańsk     PLN 9,670             59478/14 19/08/2014 Wiesław PASTUŁA 27/03/1953 Mielec   Tomasz URBAN PLN 22,440             63767/14 05/09/2014 Siergiej PŁOCYN 19/07/1962 Wrocław   PLN 9,360             66932/14 02/10/2014 Dariusz ĆWIERTNIA 17/07/1968 Wadowice     PLN 6,420             70581/14 20/10/2014 Paweł GRABOWSKI 09/10/1979 Halinów     PLN 6,040             76542/14 04/12/2014 Marek RASIŃSKI 29/10/1956 Warszawa     PLN 20,600             3465/15 09/01/2015 Tomasz AUGUSTYN 13/12/1974 Wrocław     PLN 7,800             10939/15 26/05/2015 Sebastian KUCHARCZYK 04/08/1988 Gdańsk   PLN 6,360