AFFAIRE SIAŁKOWSKA ET 6 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE
- Instanță
- CtEDO
- Concluzie
- Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt
AFFAIRE SIAŁKOWSKA ET 6 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE (CtEDO, 2013)
Cea de-a 1176-a ședință a Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului, anexa 16 (Punctul H46-1) Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2013)147 Șapte cauze împotriva Poloniei Executarea hotărârilor Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului în cauza Cerere n Hotărârea Deținătorul SIAŁKOWSKA 8932/05 22/03/2007 09/07/2007 JEDROZEJCZAK 56334/08 03/11/2011 04/06/2012 KOCUREK 20520/08 26/10/2010 26/10/2010 KRAMARZ 34851/07 05/10/2010 05/10/2010 05/10/2010 ZEBROWSKI 34736/06 03/11/2011 04/06/2012 SUBICKA No. 2 34043/05+ 21/06/2011 21/09/2011 ZAPADKA 2619/05 15/12/2009 15/03/2010 (adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 10 iulie 2013, cu ocazia celei de-a 1176-a ședințe a delegaților miniștrilor) Comitetul miniștrilor, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenția pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale, care prevede ca Comitetul să supravegheze executarea hotărârilor definitive ale Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (denumite în continuare "convenția" și "Curtea"), Având în vedere hotărârile definitive care au fost transmise de Curte Comitetului în cauzele de mai sus și încălcările constatate care reamintesc obligația statului pârât, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (1) (1) din Convenție, să se conformeze hotărârilor definitive în litigiile la care este parte și că această obligație implică, pe lângă plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte, adoptarea de către autoritățile din statul membru în cauză, dacă este necesar de măsuri individuale pentru a pune capăt încălcărilor constatate și pentru a elimina consecințele acestora, în măsura posibilului de către Restitutio in integrum de măsuri generale de prevenire a unor încălcări similare care au invitat guvernul din statul pârât să informeze Comitetul cu privire la măsurile luate pentru a se conforma obligației respective După ce a examinat bilanțul de acțiune furnizat de guvern indicând măsurile adoptate pentru a executa hotărârile, inclusiv informațiile furnizate în ceea ce privește plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2013)570 S DECLARĂ quasures to comply with the judgments in the Siałkowska against Poland group of cases (engleză) Case description Siałkowska, Application No. 8932/05, judgment of 22/03/2007 final on 22/06/2007 Jędrzejczak, Application No. 56334/08, judgment of 11/01/2011, final on 11/04/2011 Kocurek, Application No. 20520/08, judgment of 26/10/2010, final on 26/01/2011 Kramarz, Application No. 34851/07, judgment of 05/10/2010, final on 05/01/2011 Subicka (No. 2), Application No. 34043/05, judgment of 21/06/2011, final on 21/09/2011 Zapadka, application No. 2619/05, judgment of 15/12/2009, final on 15/03/2010 Staroszczyk, Application No. 59519/00, judgment of 22/03/2007 final on 22/06/2007 Caseta above se referă la încălcări ale dreptului de acces la Suprem Court on account of the lack of timely information in a proper form on the refuzal of their legal-aid lawyers to asist them in lodging casation appeals in civil proceedings, efectivly depriving them of access to the Supreme Court (violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention). The case Subicka (No. 2) se referă la o failure of a legal-aid lawyer to inform the appicant on her rendal to prepare casation appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court. The European Court, while examining the circumstances of the cases, had regard to the special features of the Polish legal aid system and observad that the refuzal of legal aid by a lawyer should meet cert criteria. În acest respect, se aplică regulations laid down no time-limit for lawyers to information clients of their intention not to submit a casation appeal, nor did they obligation lawyers to prege legal opinii on the prospect of such appeals. In the above-mentioned cases, the applicants right to access to the Supreme Court was violated on account of a short time left for the aplicants to prepare a casation appeal after they were informad by a legal-aid lawyer on reasonable prospects of such appeal or due to the lack of such reasoned information in writing. Individual measures The European Court awarded the applicants with just satisfaction in respect of moraly damage. Details of just satisfaction Siałkowska, Application No. 8932/05, judgment of 22/03/2007 final on 22/06/2007 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 4,000 EUR 4,000 EUR Paid on 17/08/2007 Jędrzejczak, Application No. 56334/08, judgment of 11/01/2011, final on 11/04/2011 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 1,000 EUR Paid on 21/03/2011 Kocurek, Application No. 20520/08, judgment of 26/10/2010, final on 26/01/2011 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 1,000 EUR Paid on 14/012012 Kramarz, Application No. 34851/07, judgment of 05/10/2010, final on 05/01/2011 Pecuniary damage Non-peniary damage Costs and expenses Total 1,000 EUR 3,093 EUR Paid on 15/12/2010 ebrowski, Application No. 34736/06, judgment of 03/11/2011, final on 03/020/2012 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and exposes Total 1,500 EUR 1,500 EUR Paid on 23/07/2012/ Subicka (No. 2), Application No. 34043/05, judgment of 21/06/2011, final on 21/09/2011 Pecuniary damage No-pecuniary damage Costs and expenssess Total 1,000 EUR 1,000 EUR Paid on 13/12/2011 Zapadka, Application No. 2619/05, judgment of 15/12/2009, final on 15/03/2010 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 2,000 EUR 2,000 EUR Paid on 09/006/2010 Staroszczyk, Application No. 59519/00, judgment of 22/03/2007 final on 22/06/2007 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 4,000 EUR 1,331.24 EUR 5,331.24 EUR Paid on 02/08/2007 Pursuant to Article 169 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party to the proceseedings may ask for retrospective leave to perform a procedural measure outside the precribed time-limit (for example to lodge a cassation appeal), this measure shall be performd simultanously with lodging a request. The request should be lodged within 7 days from the data the circumstances preventing a party from performing a procesdural measure ceased to exist. Retrospective leave, after a year from the expiry of the precribed time-limit, may be granted only cases. In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary. General measures Cu view to avoiding new similarar viols the Polish authorities adopted, on 17 decembrie 2009, the Law amending the Code of Civil Procedure (entered into force on 19 April 2010). According to Article 118 § 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if an advocate or a legal counsel, adițional in conection with the cassation appeedings, finds no grounds to file an appeal, he/she shall notify thereof in writing the party and the court immediately and not later that within two weeks since the notification of his/her suplimentar. An advocate or a legal counsel shall applend to the prospect his/her opinie about the lack of the grounds to file an appeal. Această opinie shall not be axed to the case-file and shall not be served upon the other party. art. 118 alineatul (6) introduces a legal supervization of the opinii by a scurt, which shall notify the competient organizal of the self-governing profesional asociations if the opinie has not been preged with due diligence. In such a case, the competent regional bar council or regional chamber of legal counsels shall support another advocate or legal counsel. The Law of 17 decembrie 2009 also introduced new rules as to the expiry of a time-limit for lodging appeal. Thus, acording to a newly introduced art. 124 alineatul (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the event of the advocate of an advocate or a legal counsel upon a motion submitted before the expiration of the time-limit for lodging a casation appeal by the party which corectely requested the service of the judgment with reasons, the trial Court shall ses upon the advocate or legal counsel the judgment with the reasons ex official and the time-limit for lodging of the casation appeal shall run from the data of the service of the judgment with reasons upon the representative. art. 124 alineatul (4) din Codul de procedură al civililor further provides that in case of rejection of the motion for the advocate of an advocate or a legal counsel in casation proceedings, the time-limit for lodging a casation appeal shall start to run from the day of the service of this decision on the party and if the decision was1⁄2d in public However, if the party lodged an interlocutory appeal within the proscribed time-limit, the time-limit for lodging a casation appeal starts from the service on the party of the decision dismissing the interlocutory appeal, and if the decision of the court of the second instance wasęd in public mail the date of its announcement. It should be underlined that already in the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure of 22 decembrie 2004 that came into force on 5 February 2005, a time for lodging the cassation appeal was changed from 30 days to two months. Moreover, the Supreme Bar Council, in its Resolution No. 61/2007 of 15 September 2007, held that the analysis of the case files in order to verify whether there exist grounds for lodging a casation appeal should be conducted by an advocate without undue delay. Resual to pregăt a casation appeal shall be prepared in form of written pourseserved to the client and a Dean of a local Bar Council also without undue delay. An advocate is obligad to notify the court on providing of this kind of opinie and its sending to the client and a Dean of a local Bar Council. Bazed on a general rule of the lawyers. liability for nevalide or negligent conductor, a party may seek compensation before a civil scurt against aid lawyer, who refuzd to lodge a cassation appeal. This rule was confirmăd by the Supreme Court The Court.s judgments in cases Siałkowska, Staroszczyk and mailowski were translated and publicityshed, inter alia , on the website of the Ministry of Justice. The judgments of the Court were also inclusded in the curricula of trenings for judges and prosecutors. In these Circumstances, no other general measure appears necessary. III. Concluzii of the responting State State III. The government considers that further individual measures are not necessary in the present case and that the general Measures adopted, in particular legislative changes, publication and disemination of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights will be sucient to conclusion that Poland has compliment with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the convention in respect to the breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. [1] Information submitted by the Polish authorities on 16 May 2013.