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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 70562/10 Janusz DEC against Poland and 31 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 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. 7.     On various dates in 2017 all applicants informed the Court that they had agreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations. 8.     The Court finds that following the applicants’ express agreements to the terms of the declarations made by the Government the cases should be treated as friendly settlements between them and the Government. 9.     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.” 10.     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). 11.     The same conclusions apply to the instant cases. The Court therefore takes note of the friendly settlements reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlements are 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. 12.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 39 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   70562/10 25/11/2010 Janusz DEC 06/11/1968 Rzeszów     PLN 32,290   8788/11 28/01/2011 Bogusław KLESZCZ Czarna   Tomasz ZIELIŃSKI PLN 8,690   16517/11 07/02/2011 Zbigniew KOZDÓJ 07/06/1969 Osiecznica     PLN 8,990   55549/12 14/08/2012 Robert WYTRYKOWSKI 07/11/1978 Wołomin       PLN 23,710   55877/12 26/06/2012 Jacek ZDANOWSKI 10/02/1971 Warszawa     PLN 12,110   56488/12 22/08/2012 Wojciech FEJDYCH 22/04/1971 Janowice     PLN 15,600   57555/12 29/08/2012 Bogdan PYZOWSKI 29/08/1979 Nowy Targ     PLN 18,000   58900/12 05/09/2012 Dariusz BŁASZCZYK 09/11/1976 Włocławek     PLN 10,480   59424/12 02/09/2012 Sebastian HOLK 25/07/1979 Gdańsk       PLN 2,270             70223/12 24/10/2012 Robert TABAKA 05/06/1983 Racibórz     PLN 4,040             72574/12 19/10/2012 Stanisław WICIŃSKI 14/11/1947 Tuchola     PLN 28,770             72607/12 08/11/2012 Rafał WYCHOWANIEC 15/02/1978 Brześć Kujawski     PLN 9,360             76727/13 22/11/2013 Robert SZCZĘSNY 08/06/1963 Warszawa     PLN 16,150             77676/13 19/11/2013 Mariusz Tadeusz BENEK 19/08/1988 Mazoncowice       PLN 8,990             39982/14 14/04/2014 Jerzy SZEWCZUK 14/01/1962 Mircze     PLN 21,880             40018/14 23/06/2014 Józef KOZIEŁ 07/12/1951 Kielce   Agnieszka MASSALSKA PLN 8,480             41564/14 15/09/2014 Janusz POLK 22/10/1986 Brzeg     PLN 4,680             45603/14 10/06/2014 Czesław KOWALCZYK 25/01/1966 Gdańsk   Wiktor SZEWCZYK PLN 33,570             45640/14 12/06/2014 Andrzej Tadeusz KIJOWSKI 15/07/1954 Warszawa       PLN 7,660             49841/14 02/07/2014 Kamil WALASZEK 17/11/1984 Bielsko-Biała     PLN 14,280 for the first set of proceedings and PLN 10,300 for the second set of proceedings             50650/14 15/01/2015 Mariusz PERLIŃSKI 23/04/1971 Katowice     PLN 12,110             53376/14 21/07/2014 PiotrRUDNY 05/10/1944 Mielec   Marcin BŁACH PLN 22,440             53449/14 21/07/2014 PiotrMIKOŁAJEWSKI 24/09/1960 Warszawa   Marcin BŁACH PLN 22,440             54610/14 16/07/2014 Dariusz ZIEMNICKI 09/10/1979 Żytkowice       PLN 6,790             63947/14 09/10/2014 Jakub Damian GAŃKO 25/06/1987 Grójec     PLN 9,360             64122/14 05/09/2014 Ireneusz SZOŁTYSKI 07/04/1966 Malbork     PLN 7,800             73050/14 03/11/2014 Henryk ŁUCZYŃSKI 14/10/1957 Lublin     PLN 6,240             1005/15 13/12/2014 Przemysław ROMANOWSKI 16/09/1977 Erfurt     PLN 7,800             1140/15 15/12/2014 Bartłomiej MAREK 31/08/1972 Strzelce Opolskie       PLN 12,900             2260/15 25/01/2015 Janusz TRELA 13/09/1963 Racibόrz     PLN 12,600             20192/15 20/04/2015 Krzysztof BĄCZEK 05/01/1972 Nowa Sól     PLN 16,720             23090/15 04/02/2015 Szczepan ŁACIAK 23/11/1973 Cieszyn     PLN 12,480