CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 26 mars 2019

.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 } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .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 } .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 } .s6DD35890 { width:19.77pt; display:inline-block } .s95763BEF { width:138.75pt; display:inline-block } .sAFF36EC2 { width:18.78pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; 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 }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 62243/15 Marek Ryszard KARPIŃSKI against Poland   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26   March 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Ksenija Turković, President,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Armen Harutyunyan, judges, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 December 2015, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 7 June 2018 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 1.     The applicant, Mr Marek Ryszard Karpiński, is a Polish national, who was born in 1966 and lives in Poznań. 2.     The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska and subsequently by Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of proceedings in his case and under Article   13 of the Convention about the lack of redress for the excessive length of proceedings. 4.     The application had been communicated to the Government . 5.     By letter dated 7 June 2018 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration 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 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 7,030 Polish Zlotys (PLN seven thousand and thirty) to the applicant. 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 sum referred to above is to cover any 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 the sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest, 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   Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, nos. 72287/10 and 2   others, 7   July 2015 ). They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. THE LAW A.     Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention 6.     By letter of 17 December 2018, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. 7.     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”. 8.     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. 9.     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). 10.     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 v. Poland and 398 other applications (dec.), nos. 53491/10 and 72286/10, §§ 51-53, 20 June 2017). 11.     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)). 12.     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 ). 13.     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). 14.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in its part concerning the complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention. B.     Other alleged violations of the Convention 15.     The applicant also raised a number of complains under other Articles of the Convention. 16.     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 applicant’s remaining complaints (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 strike the application out of its list of cases in its part concerning the complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention; Holds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints. Done in English and notified in writing on 18 April 2019.   Renata Degener   Ksenija Turković   Deputy Registrar   President