CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 9 avril 2026

.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 } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .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 } .sA10C00D6 { width:14.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sBED24249 { width:127.41pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s935FFEBF { width:7.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sDCEB1D12 { width:138.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s72832412 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sD8909BE6 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 5126/22 Lech DZIOBA against Poland (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9   April 2026 as a Committee composed of:   Raffaele Sabato , President ,   Artūrs Kučs,   Anna Adamska-Gallant , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 10   January 2022, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Ms M. Gąsiorowska, a lawyer practising in Warsaw. The applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol 1 No. 1 of the Convention concerning the decrease of the applicant’s pension was communicated to the Polish Government (“the Government”). Following the decision issued by the Minister of the Interior and Administration and the subsequent recalculations, the applicant had been receiving his pension at the same rate as before this was reduced in 2017, and he had also received full back payments. The Court therefore finds that the circumstances complained of by the applicant no longer obtain and the effects of a possible violation of the Convention on account of those circumstances have been redressed, and therefore both conditions for the application of Article   37 §   1   (b) of the Convention are met (see El   Majjaoui   and Stichting Touba Moskee v. the Netherlands (striking out) [GC], no. 25525/03, §§   30 ‑ 34, 20 December 2007, and Vadalà v.   Italy (dec.), no. 14656/15, §   35, 7   November 2023). THE LAW The Court considers that the related issued have been “resolved” within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. The Court also reiterates that it is not required, for the purposes of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, that the national authorities acknowledge a violation of the Convention or that the applicant, in addition to having obtained a resolution of the matter, is also granted compensation (see H.P. v. Denmark (dec.), no.   55607/09 , §   78, 13   December 2016, and Klucińska-Głuszczak v. Poland (dec.) no.   33274/22, §   35, 14 October 2025). Lastly, the Court finds no particular reason relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention that would require it to continue to examine the complaints at issue under Article 37 § 1 in fine . In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 13 May 2026.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Raffaele Sabato   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 1 of Protocol 1 No. 1 to the Convention (peaceful enjoyment of possessions)   Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [1] 5126/22 10/01/2022 Lech DZIOBA 1956   Gąsiorowska Monika Małgorzata Warsaw 1,155   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.