FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14926/10
by Maria KARP
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 June 2011 as a Committee composed of:
	Zdravka Kalaydjieva, President,
	Lech Garlicki,
	Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 March 2010,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 7 April 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, Ms Maria Karp, is a Polish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Słubice. 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
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1.  Criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 17 December 2007 criminal charges were brought against the applicant before the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Gorzów Wielkopolski. She was accused of bribery and using a counterfeited document. On the same day the prosecutor heard the applicant.
On 22 September 2008 the applicant requested that an expert in psychiatry be appointed to give an opinion on her mental health.
On 3 December 2008 the applicant complained of the inactivity of the prosecutor in charge of the investigation. She filed her complaint with the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Gorzów Wielkopolski.
On 23 February 2009 the applicant filed another complaint of inactivity with the Ministry of Justice.
On 23 September 2009 an expert submitted a report.
It appears that the investigation is still pending. No bill of indictment has yet been filed against the applicant.
2.  Proceedings under the 2004 Act
On 10 June 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
On 14 September 2009 the Zielona Góra Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as ill-founded. The court, having considered only the period after the entry into force of the amendments to the 2004 Act on 1 May 2009, found no delays in the criminal investigation conducted against the applicant after that date.
B.  Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial and enforcement proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are stated in the Court’s decisions in the cases of Charzyński v. Poland, no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V, and Ratajczyk v. Poland no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005‑VIII, and in its judgments in cases of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34‑46, ECHR 2005‑V and Krzysztofiak v. Poland, no. 38018/07, §§ 23‑31, 20 April 2010.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings. 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 ...any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
By letter dated 7 April 2011 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 the unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the unreasonable duration of the applicant’s preparatory proceedings (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention).
Consequently, the Government are prepared to accept the applicant’s claims to a maximum of PLN 6,000. The Government would 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.
(...) As transpires from the Government’s unilateral declaration, the Government accepted paying to the applicant the sum of PLN 6,000 in the event of the Court’s striking the case out of its list.”
In a letter of 30 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 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 the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
The Court further notes that this decision constitutes a final resolution of this application only in so far as the proceedings before the Court are concerned. It is without prejudice to the use by the applicant of other remedies before the domestic courts to claim further compensation in respect of the length of the impugned investigation, which is still pending.
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 the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 § 1 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 accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
	Fatoş Aracı	Zdravka Kalaydjieva
	Deputy Registrar	President