Arkadiusz SOLOBODOWSKI v Poland - 36321/08 [2012] ECHR 399 (21 February 2012)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21 February 2012 as a Committee composed of:

David Thór Björgvinsson, President,
Nebojša Vučinić,
Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 16 November 2011 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,

“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”

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

“...The Government hereby wish to express – by way of the unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement of the violation of reasonableness of the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and the judicial proceedings within the meaning of Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention.

In these circumstances, the Government declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the amount of PLN 12,000, which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case-law (see, inter alia, Dublas v. Poland, application no. 48247/06, judgment of 7 October 2008; Boldyrev v. Ukraine, application no. 27889/03, judgment of 20 January 2011; Prokopenko v. Ukraine, application no. 5522/04, judgment of 20 January 2011; Shenoyev v. Russia, application no. 2563/06, judgment of 10 June 2010; and Szydłowski v Poland, application no. 1326/04, judgment of 16 October 2007). 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. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from the 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 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. ...”

“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

copies of the newspaper articles which stated that he was convicted by the first-instance court of murder and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. In those articles the applicant was identified by his name and the first letter of his surname. A photograph from a courtroom was published but his face was covered. As a result, the Court does not find it established that the newspaper articles had otherwise prejudged the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authorities. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 3 and 4 of the Convention.

Invoking Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant also complained that he had been defamed by the authors of articles in Dziennik Elbląski and Gazeta Nowomiejska. The Court notes that the applicant failed to seek compensation for the alleged infringement of his personal rights before the domestic courts. It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

51. The applicant further alleged under Article 8 of the Convention that between March and September 2005 he had been deprived of contact with his family. The Court notes that the applicant lodged his application on 28 July 2008. It follows that this complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

Lastly, invoking also Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complained that his correspondence had been deliberately delayed by prison authorities. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that the applicant has failed to substantiate this complaint. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with 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 in respect of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 5 § 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 so far as it relates to the above complaints in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Fatoş Aracı David Thór Björgvinsson
Deputy Registrar President

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Arkadiusz SOLOBODOWSKI v Poland - 36321/08 [2012] ECHR 399 (21 February 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/399.html Cite as: [2012] ECHR 399