European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 22107/02
by Dawid WRÓBEL
against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 16 December 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Ján Šikuta,
Mihai Poalelungi,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 May 2002,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Dawid Wróbel, is a Polish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Tarnów. He was represented before the Court by Mr Z. Cichoń, a lawyer practising in Kraków. 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.

On 2 April 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter by police officers from the police station in Gorlice. At the time of his arrest he showed no apparent physical abnormality. The applicant alleges that after being brought to the police station he was beaten by police officers.

On 5 April 2001 the applicant was remanded in custody by a decision of a court and brought to the Nowy Sącz prison. Upon his admission he was examined by a doctor who issued a medical certificate showing that the applicant had a number of bruises on his body.

On 9 May 2001 the Gorlice District Prosecutor received a complaint which the applicant had submitted on an earlier unspecified date to the Nowy Sącz Regional Prosecutor. He alleged that he had been beaten up by the police after his arrest, from 2 to 4 April 2001.

On an unspecified later date the Gorlice District Prosecutor instituted an investigation into the applicant’s complaint of ill treatment and coercion.

On 13 June 2001 the prosecutor appointed Dr H.B., the same doctor who had examined the applicant on 5 April 2001, with a view to establishing whether the applicant had suffered bodily harm as a result of the alleged ill treatment.

On 26 June 2001 the expert submitted his report to the prosecuting authorities. Subsequently, the prosecutor questioned a number of witnesses.

By a decision of 31 October 2001 the Gorlice District Prosecutor discontinued the proceedings. The prosecutor had regard to the testimonies of: the police officers who had arrested the applicant and questioned him afterwards; his mother; the doctor who had examined him on 5 April 2001; and the applicant’s co-detainee who had seen him when he had been taken to the prison after the arrest. The prosecutor also had regard to the opinion of the medical expert, who had found that the applicant’s injuries had not been as serious as described in his request for criminal proceedings to be instituted. In the light of the evidence seen as a whole, the prosecutor concluded that no ill-treatment had taken place and no criminal offence had been committed.

The applicant filed a complaint against this decision with the Regional Prosecutor.

The court upheld the decision on 28 February 2002, finding that the prosecuting authorities had collected all the necessary evidence and made an appropriate assessment of it, which had been neither superficial nor tainted with arbitrariness.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that after his arrest he had been subjected to police brutality and that the investigation of his complaint about his ill-treatment had been superficial and should not have been discontinued.

THE LAW

On 28 October 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 14,300 (fourteen thousand three hundred Polish zlotys) to Mr Dawid Wróbel with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, 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 period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

On 19 November 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant’s lawyer:

“I note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay the sum of PLN 14,300 (fourteen thousand three hundred Polish zlotys) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, 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. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Having consulted my client, I would inform you that he accepts the proposal and waives any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. He declares that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.

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 the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). 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 application out of its list of cases.

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President