[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Ryszard Marek ZAJAC v Poland - 35328/06 [2011] ECHR 1003 (7 June 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1003.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1003

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 35328/06
by Ryszard Marek ZAJĄC
against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7 June 2011 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 August 2006,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 15 February 2011 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, Mr Ryszard Marek Zając, is a Polish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Sosnowiec. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Bodnar, a lawyer practising in Warsaw. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention of the conditions of his detention in Sosnowiec Remand Centre to which he was committed from 21 August 2001 until 6 February 2002.

He also complained under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention of the unlawfulness and the length of his detention on remand which lasted from 22 September 2001 until 19 March 2003.

Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings which were pending against him for six years at two jurisdictions.

THE LAW

A.  Complaints under Articles 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention

The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention, in particular about overcrowding. 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.”

He also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of his criminal proceedings. The relevant part of this provision reads as follows:

“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

By letter dated 15 February 2011 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application under Articles 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention. 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 fact that the applicant’s conditions of 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. ), were not compatible with Article 3 of the Convention. Furthermore, the Government would like to express their acknowledgement of the fact that the length of the applicant’s criminal proceedings was not compatible with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

In these circumstances, and having particular regard to violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s conditions of detention, the Court’s pilot judgment in the case of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) as well as domestic jurisprudence submitted to this case, the Government declare that they offer to pay the applicant the amount of 6,000 PLN (six thousand Polish zlotys), which they consider to be reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of 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 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 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 12 April 2011 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) and 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  ....; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).

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 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).

B.  Complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention

The applicant’s complaints about the unlawfulness and the length of his detention on remand which lasted from 22 September 2001 until 19 March 2003 have been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in respect of the complaints under Articles 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President