Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2013)82 Biziuk (n 2) împotriva Poloniei Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (Recherche n 24580/06, Hotărârea din 17/010/2012, definitivă la 17/04/2012) (adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 7 mai 2013 în cadrul celei de-a 1170-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 hotărârea definitivă care a fost transmisă de Curte Comitetului în cauza de mai sus și încălcarea constatată; reamintind 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 ; Am invitat guvernul statului pârât să informeze Comitetul cu privire la măsurile luate pentru a se conforma obligației După examinarea bilanțului de acțiune furnizat de guvern care indică măsurile adoptate în vederea executării hotărârii judecătorești, inclusiv informațiile furnizate în ceea ce privește plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2013) 320E), asigurându-se că au fost adoptate toate măsurile prevăzute la art. 46 alineatul (1), DECLARĂ quasures to comply with the judgment in the case of Biziuk against Poland (nr. 2) (numai în limba engleză) Case description Biziuk (nr. 2), Application No. 24580/06, judgment of 17/012012, final on 17/04/2012/2012 Caseta referitoare la aplicația unlawful detention in a psychiatric spital between 11 and 17 September 2006 (violation of Article 5 § 1 of the convention). In April 2005, expert psihiatrists considered that the applicant suffered from paranoia with elements of psihosis. Subsequently, on 14 September 2005 the Sokółka Disctrict Court discontinued the criminal procesedings against the applicant and ordered his plasament in a psychiatric spital. on 11 September 2006, in another set of criminal proceseedings against him, the Białystok District Court considered that the appicanted that the appicants condition had semnificantly improved and ordered his release. However, the spital refuzed to release the applicant refering to the decision of 14 September 2005. The Court conchised that it had not been September 2006 and consequently mail the appicants spitalisation within this period was not mailawful... within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the convention. The case also ôs the delay in the procesedings by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in the psychiatric spital (violation of Article 5 § 4 of the convention). The Court observad that the applicant appeal against the decision of 23/02/2006 was analized on 21/03/2006. His subsequent motions for release were also analized with some delay. The Court found that these delays could not be considered compatibil with the requirement of Details of just satisfaction Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 500 EUR 150 EUR Paid on 9 July 2012 Individual measures The Court awarded the aplicant just satisfaction in respect of moraly damage. In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary. General Measures Încălcarea articolului 5 alineatul (1) și a articolului 5 alineatul (4) din Convenție în prezent were rather of an izolated natura and resulted from thefact that the spital disregarded a decission which stated that the applicant Therefore, it seems that publicity and disemination of the Court În aceste circumstanțe, nu other general measure appears necessary. Concluzii ale respondenței State The government considers that other individual measures are not necessary in the present case and that the general Measures adopted, in particular publicity 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. [1] Informații submitted by the Polish authorities on 20 March 2013.
Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)82
Biziuk (n
o
2) contre Pologne
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
(Requête n
o
24580/06, arrêt du 17/01/2012, définitif le 17/04/2012)
(adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 7 mai 2013,
lors de la 1170e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)
Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit que le Comité surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «
la Convention
» et «
la Cour
»),
Vu l’arrêt définitif qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée ;
Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe
1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire
:
-
de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par
restitutio in integrum
;
et
-
de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;
Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer à l’obligation susmentionnée
;
Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2013)320E)
;
S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées,
DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et
DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.
Action report
[1]
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Biziuk against Poland (No. 2)
(Anglais seulement)
Case description
Biziuk (No. 2), Application No. 24580/06, judgment of 17/01/2012, final on 17/04/2012
The case concerns the applicant’s unlawful detention in a psychiatric hospital between 11 and 17
September
2006 (violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention).
In April 2005, expert psychiatrists considered that the applicant suffered from paranoia with elements of psychosis. Subsequently, on 14 September 2005 the Sokółka Disctrict Court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant and ordered his placement in a psychiatric hospital. On 11 September 2006, in another set of criminal proceedings against him, the Białystok District Court considered that the applicant’s condition had significantly improved and ordered his release. However, the hospital refused to release the applicant referring to the decision of 14 September 2005. The Court concluded that it had not been “reliably shown” that the applicant`s mental condition necessitated his confinement between 11 and 17
September 2006 and consequently – the applicant’s hospitalisation within this period was not “lawful” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
The case also concerns the delay in the proceedings by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in the psychiatric hospital (violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention). The Court observed that the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 23/02/2006 was examined on 21/03/2006. His subsequent motions for release were also examined with some delay. The Court found that these delays could not be considered compatible with the requirement of “speediness” laid down in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
-
2
1
Paid on 9 July 2012
Individual measures
The Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary.
General measures
The violations of Article 5 § 1 and Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in the present case were rather of an isolated nature and resulted from the fact that the hospital disregarded a decision which stated that the applicant’s condition had significantly improved, and based its conclusion not to release him on an earlier decision, given in another set of proceedings, ordering his confinement. Therefore, it seems that publication and dissemination of the Court’s judgment would be appropriate in order to avoid similar violations in the future.
In this context it should be noted, that the Court’s judgment was translated into Polish and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.ms.gov.pl). It is also included in the training programme addressed to judges and prosecutors.
In these circumstances, no other general measure appears necessary.
Conclusions of the responding State
The government considers that other individual measures are not necessary in the present case and that the general measures adopted, in particular publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, will be sufficient to conclude that Poland has complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
[1]
Information submitted by the Polish authorities on 20 March 2013.