BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Halina PADJAS v Poland - 33466/07 [2010] ECHR 88 (12 January 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/88.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 88 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
33466/07
by Halina PADJAS
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 12 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas
Bratza,
President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Giovanni
Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
David
Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi
Bianku,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
judges,
and
Fatoş Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 July 2007,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 6 November 2009 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Halina Padjas, is a Polish national who was born in 1939 and lives in Zwierzyniec. She was represented before the Court by her husband Mr Z. Padjas. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A. The circumstances of the case
On an unspecified date the applicant applied for a special disability pension on account of having been deprived of her liberty in a Nazi prison camp during the Second World War.
On 20 July 2005 the Biłgoraj Social Security Board refused to grant the applicant the benefit sought, having found that there had been no causal link between the applicant’s disability and her one-month-long detention in the prison camp over 60 years earlier.
The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision.
On 20 April 2006 the Zamość Regional Court dismissed the appeal.
The applicant lodged a further appeal.
On 14 February 2007 the Lublin Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The applicant then requested the Lublin Court of Appeal to grant her legal aid for the purpose of lodging a cassation appeal.
On 1 March 2007 the Lublin Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s request for a legal aid lawyer. The decision contains no reasons.
B. Relevant domestic law
Legal provisions concerning compulsory legal representation in cassation appeal proceedings applicable at the material time are set out in paragraphs 27 31 of the Court’s judgment in the case of Laskowska v. Poland, no. 77765/01, 13 March 2007.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained about the refusal to appoint her a legal-aid lawyer for the purpose of lodging a cassation appeal against the judgment of 14 February 2007.
She also complained under Article 6 of the Convention about unfairness of the proceedings and that the Court of Appeal had wrongly instructed her about a possibility to lodge a cassation appeal against the judgment of 14 February 2007.
THE LAW
A. Access to a court
The applicant complained about lack of access to a court. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing...by [a] ... tribunal established by law...”
By letter dated 6 November 2009 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 a unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the applicant’s lack of access to a court and therefore violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
In these circumstances, and having regard to the particular facts of the case, the Government declare that they offer to pay the applicant the amount of PLN 9,000 (nine thousand Polish zlotys) which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case-law. The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, will be free from any taxes that may be applicable. It 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 for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 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 Government would respectfully suggest that the above declaration 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 19 November 2009 the applicant requested the Court to dismiss the Government’s declaration and to examine the case on the merits.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application, or part thereof, 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, or part thereof, 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 similar complaints relating to lack of access to a court (see, for example, Tabor v. Poland, no. 12825/02, 27 June 2006, Bobrowski v. Poland no. 64916/01 17 June 2008 and Laskowska v. Poland, cited above).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the global sum 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 this part 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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
The Court’s strike-out decision is without prejudice to use by the applicant of other remedies to obtain redress for the alleged lack of access to a court.
Accordingly, this part of the application should be struck out of the list.
B. Remaining complaints
The applicant further complained that the proceedings in her case had been unfair. She also submitted that the Court of Appeal had wrongly instructed her that no cassation appeal lay against judgment of 14 February 2007.
However, the Court considers that this part of the application lacks substantiation. It follows that the remainder of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning lack of access to a court 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 so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President