FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 31053/21
Alicja PROKOPCOW and Tomasz MACIEJKO
against Poland

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5 December 2024 as a Committee composed of:

 Georgios A. Serghides, President,
 Erik Wennerström,
 Alain Chablais, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 June 2021,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement with respect of the first applicant,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 21 October 2024 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases with respect to the second applicant and his reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants and their representatives is set out in the appended table.

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of a violation of their right to a hearing by an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” since their civil case had been decided by a formation of the Supreme Court composed of a judge appointed to that court by the President of Poland, pursuant to the recommendation of the National Council of the Judiciary (Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa, “the NCJ”) as established under the Amending Act on the NCJ and certain other statutes of 8 December 2017. The complaint was communicated to the Polish Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

1. First applicant: Alicja PROKOPCOW

On 17 October 2021 the first applicant died. On 30 September 2022 the late applicant’s daughter, Ms Anna Góra, declared that she wished to pursue the application before the Court. She indicated that she was the applicant’s only heir which had been officially confirmed by a public notary. The Government did not contest the applicant daughter’s standing to pursue the application.

On 18 June and 18 July 2024 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which Ms Anna Góra, the first applicant’s heir, agreed to waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts giving rise to these application, subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay her 10,000 euros (EUR). This amount will be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay it within the above-mentioned 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 payment will constitute the final resolution of the case of the first applicant.

The Court has recently examined friendly settlements reached between the parties in identical cases against Poland and considers that its conclusions are directly applicable to the case under consideration (see I.G. and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 42668/21, 8 October 2024).

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of that part of the application.

2. Second applicant: Tomasz MACIEJKO

In the case of the second applicant, after the failure of an attempt to reach a friendly settlement, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the complaint. They further requested the Court to strike out this part of the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The Government acknowledged the violation of the second applicant’s right to an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. They offered to pay him EUR 10,000 and invited the Court to strike this part of the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount 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 the amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook 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 payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

The applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicant accepting the terms of the declaration.

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 right to a hearing by an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” protected by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, § 214). In respect of Poland, the deficiencies in the procedure for the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court, resulting in violations of the applicants’ right to a hearing by an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” protected by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, have been established in respect of various Chambers of the Supreme Court: the Disciplinary Chamber (see Reczkowicz v. Poland, no. 43447/19, 22 July 2021), the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs (see Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19, 8 November 2021) and formations of the Civil Chamber (see Advance Pharma sp. z o.o v. Poland, no. 1469/20, 3 February 2022). In its pilot judgment in the case of Wałęsa v. Poland (no. 50849/21, 23 November 2023), the Court listed several interrelated systemic problems which entailed repeated breaches of the fundamental principles of the rule of law, separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary.

The Court has recently examined unilateral declarations submitted by the Government in identical cases against Poland and considers that its conclusions are directly applicable to the case under considerations (see Dudek and Lazur v. Poland (dec.), nos. 41097/20 and 39577/22, 8 October 2024).

The Court notes that the Government’s declaration in the present case contain, firstly, an unconditional acknowledgement of the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the right to an independent and impartial “tribunal established by law.” Secondly, the Government undertake to pay the applicant the sum which is consistent with amounts awarded in similar cases.

Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations as well as the amount of compensation proposed the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application 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).

3. Conclusion

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to strike the part of the application in respect of the first applicant out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration with respect to the second applicant and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

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

Done in English and notified in writing on 16 January 2025.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Georgios A. Serghides
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.