CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 10 mai 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFBC16547 { width:30.68pt; display:inline-block } .sCF8ED496 { width:141.6pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .s5A070004 { width:213.96pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 60606/09 Zbigniew TROJAK against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on   10   May   2012 as a Chamber composed of:   David Thór Björgvinsson, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Päivi Hirvelä,   George Nicolaou,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 November 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Zbigniew Trojak, is a Polish national, who was born in   1956 and lives in Cracow. He was represented before the Court by   Mr   Z.   Cichoń, a lawyer practising in Cracow. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The applicant alleged a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of prison overcrowding and the overall inadequate conditions of detention in   particular for a person like him with a severe visual impairment. THE LAW The applicant complained about prison overcrowding and the overall conditions of detention which, as he alleged, had been inadequate in   particular for a person with severe visual impairment such as his. He   relied on Article 3 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or   punishment.” By letter dated 13 February 2012 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration provided as follows: “(...) the Government hereby wish to express – by way of unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the systemic violation of Article 3 of the Convention on   account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention, in particular overcrowding, as indentified 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. ). Consequently, the Government declare that they offer to pay the applicant the   amount of 22,120   PLN (twenty-two thousand one hundred-twenty Polish zlotys), which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the court’s case-law. The sum referred to above includes PLN 12,000, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses of the proceedings before the Court and PLN 10,120, which is to cover costs and expenses of the proceedings before the domestic courts, which the applicant owes to the State Treasury on account of the judgments of the Kielce Regional Court of 1 October 2008 (case no. IC 331/07) and the Kraków Court of Appeal of 13 March 2009 (case no. I ACa 126/09) (...) This sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of   the   decision taken 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 periods plus three percentage points. The   payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. The Government would respectfully suggest that the above declaration might be   accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. ...” In a letter of 27 February 2012 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low. The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article   37 §   1   (c) enables the Court in particular 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”. It also recalls that in certain circumstances it may strike out an   application 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. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey , [GC], no.   26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR   2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26   June   2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03). The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of   Article 3 on account of overcrowding and inadequate detention conditions (see, for example, the pilot judgments in the cases of Orchowski v.   Poland , no.   17885/04, ECHR 2009 ‑ ... (extracts) and Norbert Sikorski v.   Poland , no.   17599/05, 22   October 2009 and the leading follow-up decision in the case of   Łatak v.   Poland (dec.), no.   52070/08, 12 October 2010). Having regard to the nature of 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)). Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, 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 ). For these reasons, the Court unanimously Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 3 of the Convention and of the modalities 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.   Lawrence Early   David Thór Björgvinsson   Registrar   President