Dymiński v. Poland

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 64519/16 Piotr DYMIŃSKI against Poland

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3 September 2026 as a Committee composed of:

Frédéric Krenc , President , Davor Derenčinović, Alain Chablais , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 3 November 2016,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.

The applicant was represented by Mr M. Szydłowski, a lawyer practising in Kielce.

The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention concerning the lack of opportunity to examine a witness was communicated to the Polish Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by this complaint. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The Government acknowledged a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike 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 this 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 applicant wishes the examination of the case 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 lack of opportunity to examine a witness (see, for example, Al‑Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011, and Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, ECHR 2015).

Noting 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)). In the absence of any arguments from the applicant, the Court has no reasons to consider that the compensation offered by the Government constitutes inadequate or otherwise unreasonable redress for the violation of his Convention rights (see Ryabkin and Volokitin v. Russia (dec.), nos. 52166/08 and 8526/09, §§ 49-50, 28 June 2016, and Igranov and Others v. Russia , nos. 42399/13 and 8 others, § 24, 20 March 2018, and, for a similar approach, Antovski and Others v. North Macedonia (dec.) [Committee], no. 68160/17, 8 December 2022).

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 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).

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

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements 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.

Done in English and notified in writing on 24 September 2026.

Viktoriya Maradudina Frédéric Krenc Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention

(unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses)

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, if any

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses

per applicant (in euros) [1]

64519/16

03/11/2016

Piotr DYMIŃSKI

1959

Maksymilian Szydłowski

Kielce

21/07/2025

-

7,800

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