FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 16406/10
by Czesława BEDNARZ
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 November 2010 as a Committee composed of:
	David Thór Björgvinsson, President,
	Päivi Hirvelä,
	Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 March 2010,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 29 July 2010 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 Czeslawa Bednarz, is a Polish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Slupsk. 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.
The application concerns civil proceedings instituted by the applicant. She sought to declare null and void a certain resolution of certain housing co-operative.
On 29 September 2008 the Elblag Regional Court dismissed the claim as manifestly ill-founded.
On 6 May 2009 the Gdansk Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
On 24 June 2009 the applicant was granted a legal-aid lawyer’s assistance in order to produce a cassation appeal.
The time-limit to lodge the cassation appeal expired on 22 August 2009.
On 7 September 2009 the applicant was served with the legal-aid lawyer’s refusal to produce and lodge the cassation appeal.
B.  Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice are summarized the judgement in the case Siałkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, 22 March 2007.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lack of access to the Supreme Court.
The applicant complained also about the outcome of the proceedings alleging that it was unfair.
THE LAW
A.  Access to the Supreme Court
The applicant complained about the lack of access to the Supreme Court. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

By letter dated 29 July 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of 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 are prepared to pay to the applicant the sum of PLN 7,500 which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case law. The sum referred to above 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 periods plus three percentage points. ”
In a letter of 30 August 2010 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).
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)).
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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
B.   Remaining complaints
The applicant further complained that the judgments of the domestic courts were unfair referring to the assessment of evidence made by the courts and further invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The Court has examined the remainder of the complaints as submitted by the applicant. However, 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 her complaints. 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 complaint 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 so far as it relates to the above complaint 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