CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 septembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD66075BF { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s418B82EF { width:132.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3310F964 { width:13.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sFB0CA20A { width:12.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF79E9441 { width:11.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s23B60FD { width:10.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .sF468AD30 { width:41.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sB5B1C99F { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sAA572E2C { width:13.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3B9218C2 { width:12.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD7656B2A { width:11.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s55A577D9 { width:10.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBBC17273 { width:41.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sECD123DC { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 15983/21 Fehim HANUŠA against the Czech Republic (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 14   September 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Carlo Ranzoni,   Lado Chanturia,   María Elósegui , judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 17   March 2021, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Mr P. Dvořák, a lawyer practising in Prague. The applicant’s complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention concerning an inadequate amount of compensation awarded by domestic courts in respect of injuries suffered by the applicant during a police intervention were communicated to the Czech Government (“the Government”). THE LAW The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a   unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the above-mentioned complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. The Government acknowledged a violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention on account of an inadequate amount of compensation awarded to the applicant by domestic courts in respect of injuries suffered by the applicant during a police intervention. They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above ‑ mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. The applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicant accepting the terms of the declaration. The Court observes that Article   37 §   1   (c) enables it 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”. Thus, it may strike out applications 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 (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§   75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI). The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints about an amount of compensation for a personal injury caused by police interventions (see, for example, Kopylov v. Russia , no. 3933/04, 29   July 2010; Shestopalov v.   Russia , no. 46248/07, 28   March 2017; and Zličić v. Serbia , nos.   73313/17 and 20143/19, 26 January 2021). For the sake of completeness, the Court observes, as also admitted by the Government, that the recent practice of the Czech Constitutional Court (namely the decision of the plenary no. Pl. ÚS 8/22 of 26 April 2022) seems to indicate that the reopening of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court is not possible following a decision by which the Court struck out an application on the basis of the Government’s unilateral declaration. It notes in this connection that a retrial or the reopening of the case, if requested, represents in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation in cases where an individual has been convicted following proceedings that have entailed breaches of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, in particular, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (n O.   2)   [GC], n O.   19867/12, §§ 50 et 52, 11 July 2017; and Stassart v. France (dec.), no. 79356/17, 4 April 2023). However, the case at hand does not concern a complaint about unfairness of the proceedings, in respect of which the Court in principle does not accept a unilateral declaration if the applicants seek a reopening of the proceedings at the domestic level and if it is not certain whether he would have that possibility after the Government’s unilateral declaration (see, for example, Aviakompaniya A.T.I, ZAT v. Ukraine , no. 1006/07, §§ 36-41, 5   October   2017; Romić and Others v. Croatia , no. 22238/13 and 6 others, §§   84-87, 14   May 2020; and Keskin v. the Netherlands , no. 2205/16, §§   30 ‑ 32, 19   January 2021). Indeed, the gist of the applicant’s complaint lies in the issue of adequacy of a financial compensation which he had been awarded for a health damage. In such a situation, the Court is of the view that an additional monetary payment offered by the Government in their unilateral declaration provides an adequate redress in respect of the applicant’s claims. It is also to be noted that the applicant did not express any intention to lodge a request for reopening of the proceedings before the Czech Constitutional Court. Noting 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)). In the light of the above considerations, 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 ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 §   2 of the Convention (see Josipović v.   Serbia (dec.), no.   18369/07, 4   March 2008). 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 and of the arrangements 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 5 October 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Carlo Ranzoni   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (inadequate amount of compensation for personal injury caused by police officers) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of applicant’s comments Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1] 15983/21 17/03/2021 Fehim HANUŠA 1954   Petr Dvořák Prague 03/07/2023 04/08/2023 7,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant