CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 4 décembre 2025
- ECLI
- ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:1204DEC004770720
- Date
- 4 décembre 2025
- Publication
- 4 décembre 2025
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
IAFaits
Trois requérants ont saisi la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme (CEDH) pour des griefs fondés sur l'article 10 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme (CEDH) concernant la liberté d'expression. Leurs requêtes ont été communiquées au gouvernement polonais. Le gouvernement polonais a proposé des déclarations unilatérales reconnaissant des violations de l'article 10 de la CEDH et offrant des indemnisations aux requérants. Les montants proposés sont détaillés dans un tableau annexé à la décision.
Procédure
La CEDH a examiné les trois requêtes conjointement en raison de leur objet similaire. Le gouvernement polonais a demandé à la CEDH de rayer les affaires de son rôle en application de l'article 37 § 1 (c) de la CEDH, après avoir reconnu les violations alléguées et proposé des indemnisations. Les requérants n'ont pas répondu aux termes des déclarations unilatérales proposées par le gouvernement.
Question juridique
La Cour européenne des droits de l'homme peut-elle rayer une affaire de son rôle en application de l'article 37 § 1 (c) de la CEDH sur la base d'une déclaration unilatérale du gouvernement défendeur reconnaissant une violation de la Convention, même en l'absence de réponse des requérants ?
Solution
source officielleTexte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .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 } .s459D9084 { width:131.09pt; 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 } .s349C9529 { width:4.6%; 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 } .sA4F97D58 { width:11.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2973D693 { width:13.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s42EC7385 { width:15.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF4BF838A { width:16.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD6004886 { width:18.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s701C4260 { width:19.8%; 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 } .s3A74CF41 { width:4.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3F1DFF98 { width:11.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7DF33C8F { width:13.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB7C6448F { width:15.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8B16294C { width:16.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB64D8D4F { width:18.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF14C678C { width:19.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 47707/20 Dariusz KOS against Poland and 2 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4   December 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Frédéric Krenc , President ,   Davor Derenčinović,   Alain Chablais , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting 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 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants and their representatives is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 10 of the Convention concerning freedom of expression were communicated to the Polish Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. The Government acknowledged violations of Article 10 of the Convention regarding the applicants’ freedom of expression. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications 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 these 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 cases. The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations. 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 freedom of expression (see, for example, Kurłowicz v. Poland , no.   41029/06, 22 June 2010;   Zybertowicz v.   Poland , no.   59138/10, 17 January 2017;   Kącki v. Poland , no.   10947/11, 4   July 2017;   Brzeziński v.   Poland , no.   47542/07, 25 July 2019; and   Banaszczyk v.   Poland ,   no.   66299/10, 21   December 2021). Noting 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)). 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 applications (Article   37 §   1 in fine ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications 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 applications out of the Court’s list of cases. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; 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 8 January 2026.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Frédéric Krenc   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression) No. 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, if any Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     47707/20 16/10/2020 Dariusz KOS 1974   Siemaszko Konrad Warsaw 26/09/2025 30/10/2025 4,400     12941/23 09/03/2023 Marcin STĘPNIEWSKI 1992   Bzdyń Agata Warsaw 10/09/2025 10/10/2025 5,200     12946/23 14/03/2023 Dawid WINIARSKI 1994   Bzdyń Agata Warsaw 10/09/2025 10/10/2025 4,200   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicantsCitations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
- Formation
- 25
- Date
- 4 décembre 2025
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:1204DEC004770720
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral