CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 décembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s6DD35890 { width:19.77pt; display:inline-block } .s95763BEF { width:138.75pt; display:inline-block } .sAFF36EC2 { width:18.78pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 63624/09 Zdzisław SZOPA against Poland and 3 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18   December 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Ksenija Turković, President,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Armen Harutyunyan, judges, and Renata Degener, 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 on 5 October 2018 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declarations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 2.     The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska and subsequently Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of criminal proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the ineffectiveness of a civil law remedy for the excessive length of proceedings. 4.     The applications had been communicated to the Government . THE LAW 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. A.     Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention 6.     After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by letters of 5   October 2018 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. In each case the Government acknowledged a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of proceedings and violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy, securing sufficient redress for a violation of Article   6 § 1. They offered payment of sums specified in respect of each applicant in a   table appended to their declarations. The sums referred to above, which are specified in the appendix to the decision, are to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. They 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 Convention. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on each of them, 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. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. 7.     On various dates in November 2018 the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations. 8.     The Court reiterates 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 applications”. 9.     It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an 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. 10.     To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no.   11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18   September   2007). The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v.   France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v.   Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Majewski v.   Poland , no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Wende and Kukówka v.   Poland , no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007; and Rutkowski and Others v.   Poland , nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, § 160, 7 July 2015). 11.     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 applications (Article   37   §   1   (c)). 12.     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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). 13.     Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications could be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4   March 2008). 14.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list in their part concerning the complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention. B.     Otheralleged violations of the Convention 15.     The applicants in cases 51416/16 and 66916/17 further complained that the length of the proceedings complained of had infringed their rights to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 16.     Having regard to the facts of the case, the Government’s declarations, and its decision to strike out the complaints under Articles   6   §   1 and 13 of the Convention, the Court considers that the main legal question raised in the present applications has been resolved. It concludes, therefore, that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the applicants’ remaining complaints (see, mutatis mutandis , Kamil Uzun v.   Turkey , no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007, and Zanghì v. Italy , judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-C, p. 47, §   23). For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in their part concerning the complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention; Holds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints. Done in English and notified in writing on 24 January 2019.   Renata Degener   Ksenija Turković   Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by Amount proposed in Unilateral Declaration 1 63624/09 21/10/2009 Zdzisław SZOPA 14/07/1951 Warszawa Agata BZDYN PLN 12,480 2 29233/12 18/04/2011 Stanisława GIBEK 12/11/1942 Oświęcim Joanna WISŁA-PŁONKA PLN 10,890 3 51416/16 25/08/2016 Małgorzata CASTELAZO RÓŻYCKA 30/01/1974 KOZIENICE Monika GĄSIOROWSKA PLN 14,490 4 66916/17 01/09/2017 Jolanta Romualda ORKISZ 10/04/1953 Krakow Zbigniew CICHOŃ PLN 42,370