CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 décembre 2024

.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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s8C440983 { width:110.07pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s3695F815 { 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sE3DA80B3 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s3281263B { height:27.5pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 30049/22 Dariusz Stanisław CUPAŁ and Others against Poland (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5   December 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Georgios A. Serghides , President ,   Erik Wennerström,   Alain Chablais , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 6   June 2022, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 8 October 2024 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases with respect to the first and second applicants and their reply to that declaration, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case with respect to the third applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants and their representative is set out in the appended table. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of a violation of their right to a hearing by an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” since their criminal case had been decided by a formation of the Supreme Court composed of a judge appointed to that court by the President of Poland, pursuant to the recommendation of the National Council of the Judiciary ( Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa , “the NCJ”) as established under the Amending Act on the NCJ and certain other statutes of 8   December 2017. The complaint was communicated to the Polish Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Applicants Dariusz CUPAŁ and Jarosław FORYŚ In the case of the first and second applicants, after the failure of an attempt to reach a friendly settlement, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the complaint. They further requested the Court to strike out this part of the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The Government acknowledged the violation of the applicants’ right to an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention. They offered to pay to each of the applicants 10,000   euros (EUR) and invited the Court to strike this part of the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts 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 the amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on 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. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. The applicants were 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 applicants 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 applicants wish the examination of the cases 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 relating to the right to a hearing by an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” protected by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, § 214). In respect of Poland, the deficiencies in the procedure for the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court, resulting in violations of the applicants’ right to a hearing by an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” protected by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, have been established in respect of various Chambers of the Supreme Court: the Disciplinary Chamber (see Reczkowicz v.   Poland , no. 43447/19, 22 July 2021), the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs (see Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v.   Poland , nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19, 8 November 2021) and formations of the Civil Chamber (see Advance Pharma sp. z o.o v. Poland , no.   1469/20, 3   February 2022). In its pilot judgment in the case of Wałęsa v.   Poland (no.   50849/21, 23 November 2023), the Court listed several interrelated systemic problems which entailed repeated breaches of the fundamental principles of the rule of law, separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. The Court has recently examined unilateral declarations submitted by the Government in identical cases against Poland and considers that its conclusions are directly applicable to the case under considerations (see Dudek and Lazur v. Poland (dec.), nos. 41097/20 and 39577/22, 8   October 2024). The Court notes that the Government’s declarations in the present case contain, firstly, an unconditional acknowledgement of the violation of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the right to an independent and impartial “tribunal established by law.” Secondly, the Government undertook to pay the applicants the sums which are consistent with amounts awarded in similar cases. Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations as well as the amount of compensation proposed the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part 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 this part 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 declarations, 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). Applicant Roman ZABIEGAŁA On 9 and 16 May 2024 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the third applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application, subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay him EUR   10,000. This amount will be converted into the currency of the respondent State 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 it within the above-mentioned three ‑ month period, the Government undertake 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 in respect of the first applicant. The Court has recently examined friendly settlements reached between the parties in identical cases against Poland and considers that its conclusions are directly applicable to the case under consideration (see I.G. and Others v.   Poland (dec.), no. 42668/21, 8 October 2024). The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is 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 in respect of the third applicant. Conclusion 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 with respect to the first and second applicants and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the part of the application in respect of the first and second applicants out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (c) of the Convention. Decides to strike the part of the application in respect of the third applicant out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 16 January 2025.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Georgios A. Serghides   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX   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 the declaration of the third applicant Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1] 30049/22 06/06/2022 (3 applicants) Dariusz Stanisław CUPAŁ 1970 Gąsiorowska Monika Małgorzata Warsaw 08/10/2024 - 10,000 Jarosław Maciej FORYŚ 1969   08/10/2024 - 10,000 Roman Stanisław ZABIEGAŁA 1961   09/05/2024   16/05/2024 10,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.