CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 22 octobre 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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6F88BEDC { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE330DFD7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6DD35890 { width:19.77pt; display:inline-block } .sB7D4C37D { width:129.41pt; display:inline-block } .sAFF36EC2 { width:18.78pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sEA321EE2 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s3FAB130A { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#f8f8f8 } .sE8D23146 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s69AE3175 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sEA7BCE7D { border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 373/10 Jan ŚREDNICKI against Poland and 3 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 22   October 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan, President,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Pere Pastor Vilanova, 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 declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 23 and 24 May 2019 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to those 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, Mr J.   Sobczak of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     The applicants complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention of the unreasonable length of administrative proceedings in their cases and of an ineffective remedy in that respect. 4.     The applications had been communicated to the Government . THE LAW 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 6.     After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by letters of 23 and 24 May 2019, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications. In each case the Government acknowledged a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of administrative proceedings and violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy for a violation of Article 6 § 1. They offered payment of sums specified in respect of each applicant in the appendix to the decision. The sums referred to above, 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. These sums will be converted into Polish zlotys at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. 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 the 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. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. 7.     On various dates in June and July 2019 the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations on the ground that the amounts proposed were too low. 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 applications”. 9.     It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out applications 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 cases 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 Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v.   Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006 ‑ ....; Majewski v.   Poland , no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wcisło   and   Cabaj   v. Poland , nos. 49725/11 and 79950/13, 8   November 2018). 12.     Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, as well as the amounts of compensation proposed – which are 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). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations under Articles 6 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 accordance with Article   37   §   1   (c) of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 14 November 2019.   Renata Degener   Armen Harutyunyan   Deputy Registrar   President Appendix     No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of Birth Place of Residence Amount proposed in Unilateral Declaration 1 373/10 23/11/2009 Jan ŚREDNICKI 26/08/1955 Szepietowo   EUR 5,500 2 28198/11 15/04/2011 Henryk POLIT 27/04/1954 Małogoszcz Represented by P. Kładoczny   EUR 1,200 3 55870/17 18/07/2017 Lech GAŁKA 26/04/1960 Elbląg   EUR 4,800 4 3566/18 03/01/2018 Władysław FIJAK 22/01/1932 Żywiec   EUR 800