FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 41888/23 Piotr ORZECHOWSKI against Poland and 4 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7 May 2025 as a Committee composed of: Georgios A. Serghides , President , Frédéric Krenc, Alain Chablais , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting 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 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants and their representatives is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Polish Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The Government acknowledged the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, 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 payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases. The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations. The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it 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”. Thus, it may strike out 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 (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI). The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the excessive length of criminal proceedings (see, for example, Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, 7 July 2015). Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases against Poland – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)); see also the conclusions reached in the first group of cases submitted in the pilot-judgment procedure, Załuska and Rogalska and Others v. Poland (dec.), nos. 53491/10 and 72286/10 and 398 other applications, §§ 48-55, 20 June 2017). In the light of the above considerations, 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 ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 28 May 2025. Viktoriya Maradudina Georgios A. Serghides Acting Deputy Registrar President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of applicant’s comments Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1] 41888/23 12/11/2023 Piotr ORZECHOWSKI 1988 Cupiał Dawid Warszawa 16/01/2025 20/02/2025 3,750 42639/23 29/11/2023 Łukasz SMOLAGA 1993 Cupiał Dawid Warszawa 16/01/2025 20/02/2025 5,450 42849/23 01/12/2023 Dariusz SZULAWIAK 1969 Marczak Maciej Warszawa 07/02/2025 05/03/2025 11,550 428/24 13/12/2023 Ryszard MICHALSKI 1958 Cupiał Dawid Warszawa 16/01/2025 20/02/2025 3,450 897/24 28/12/2023 Mateusz MICHALSKI 1992 Cupiał Dawid Warszawa 16/01/2025 18/02/2025 1,050 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants