CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 février 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s514FD9CD { width:41.69pt; display:inline-block } .s6B4C5E6B { width:137.51pt; display:inline-block } .s67CC2216 { width:138.53pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 39052/18 Michał WARDASZKO against Poland   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 16   February 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Péter Paczolay,   Gilberto Felici, judges, and Attila Teplán , Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 August 2018, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 14 September 2020 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s failure to reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Mr Michał Wardaszko, is a Polish national, who was born in 1987 and lives in Ostrołęka. 2.     The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention about the violation of his right to confidentiality of the correspondence with his lawyer. 4.     The application had been communicated to the Government . THE LAW 5.     The applicant complained about the fact that two letters sent to him by a lawyer representing him in civil cases had been opened by the prison guards. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention. 6.     After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 14 September 2020 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. 7.     The declaration provided as follows: “The Government hereby wish to express – by way of their unilateral declaration – their acknowledgment of the fact that the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, was infringed. Simultaneously, the Government declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. The Government consider the above sum to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case-law in similar cases ... The sum will be converted into Polish Złoty at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the final ruling taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, 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.” 8.     The applicant has not commented on the terms of the unilateral declaration. 9.     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”. 10.     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 applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. 11.     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). 12.     The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the infringement of the prisoners’ rights to confidentiality of the correspondence with their lawyers (see, for example, Piechowicz v. Poland , no. 20071/07, §§ 232-240, 17   April 2012; Yefimenko v. Russia , no. 152/04, § 138-151, 12 February 2013; Ślusarczyk v. Poland , no. 23463/04, §§ 181-185, 28 October 2014; and Porowski v. Poland , no. 34458/03, §§ 166-172, 21 March 2017). 13.     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)). 14.     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 ). 15.     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). 16.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 8 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 accordance with Article   37   §   1   (c) of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 18 March 2021.   Attila Teplán   Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar   President