CEDHCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG7
CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 8 février 2011
- ECLI
- ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0208DEC002561803
- Date
- 8 février 2011
- Publication
- 8 février 2011
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleStruck out of the list
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s29100277 { 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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF8DCB537 { width:16.53pt; display:inline-block } .s25347E17 { width:182.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 25618/03 by Witold MALUSZCZAK against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 8   February 2011 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Ljiljana Mijović,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Ledi Bianku,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva,   Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 July 2003, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEDURE The application was lodged by Mr Witold Maluszczak, a Polish national who was born in 1949 and is currently detained in Wroclaw Prison. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   J.   Wołąsiewicz of   the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. On 11 January 2007 the President of the Fourth Section decided to   communicate the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, in so far as it concerned the conditions of his detention in Wołów Prison from 6 February 2002 until 26 July 2004. THE LAW On 6 December 2010 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I, Jakub Wołąsiewicz, Agent of the Government, declare that the Government of   Poland offer to pay, to Mr Witold Maluszczak with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above ‑ mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, PLN 11,000 (eleven thousand Polish zlotys), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. The payment is intended to provide the applicant with redress for the systemic violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of   the conditions of his detention, in particular overcrowding, as identified by the Court in the pilot judgment given in the case of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) on 22   October 2009 (see paragraphs 135 and 147 et seq.). This sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on   Human Rights. 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 period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.” On 3 January 2011 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I, Witold Maluszczak, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above ‑ mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, PLN   11,000 (eleven thousand Polish zlotys), plus any tax that may be   chargeable to the applicant. I further note that the payment constitutes redress for the systemic violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of my detention, in particular overcrowding, as identified by the Court in the pilot judgment given in the case of Orchowski v. Poland (no.   17885/04) on   22   October   2009 (see paragraphs 135 and 147 et seq.). This sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on   Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.” 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 (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). 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.   Lawrence Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President  Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
- Formation
- 7
- Date
- 8 février 2011
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0208DEC002561803
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral