Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2013)83 Miernicki împotriva Poloniei Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (Recherche n 10847/02, Hotărârea din 27/10/2009, definitivă la 10/05/2010) (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 că Comitetul pe care îl supraveghează supraveghează 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 obligațiilor menționate anterior 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) 317E), 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 Miernicki against Poland (numai în limba engleză) Case description Miernicki, Application No. 10847/02, judgment of 27/10/2009, final on 10/05/2010 Această rubrică se referă la încălcarea articolului 5 alineatul (1) din Convenție, as the applicant against the extensition of his detention was analized and dismissed on 16 September 2002 by the Wroclaw Court of Appeal, which was commit of three judges, inclusiving one who had given the first-instance decision extending the appicants detention was given on 15 January 2003. The Court prin urmare conclusioned that during the period starting with the de infective decision of 16 September 2002 and ending on 15 January 2003, când decizia a fost adoptată în conformitate cu art. 5 alineatul (1) din Convenția privind completarea cu o procedură precribed de law had not been observad and for that reason the had been a violation of that provision. The case also effect of the applicicants right to respect for his corelence in that five letters simte by el to the Court in 2002 were opened and marked mainsored (violation of Article 8 of the Convention). Payment of just satisfaction and individual Measures Details of just satisfaction Pecuniary damage No-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 1 500 EUR 1 500 EUR Paid on 30/07/2010 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 art. 5 alineatul (1) din Convenție in the present case was rather of an izolated natura and resulted from failure of a national scurt to comply with a procedure precribed by the domestic law. art. 40 alineatul (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a judge is ex lege descalificated from his participation in a case, if, interalia , he has participated, in a lower Court, in the delivery of a decision subject to an appeal, or has himself delivered a ruling subject to an appeal. This support applications not only to judgments but also to all procededural decisions during the criminal proceedings, such as, the impozit of detention on remand. Therefore, it seems that publicity and disemination of the Court General Measures as to the violation of Article 8 of the Convention are examined in the context of the Klamecki (No. 2) group of cases (Application No. 31583/96). In these circumstances, no other general measure appears necessary. Concluzii of the responsing 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)83
Miernicki contre Pologne
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
(Requête n
o
10847/02, arrêt du 27/10/2009, définitif le 10/05/2010)
(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 qu’il 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 aux obligations susmentionnées
;
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)317E)
;
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
Miernicki against Poland
(Anglais seulement)
Case description
Miernicki, Application No. 10847/02, judgment of 27/10/2009, final on 10/05/2010
This case concerns violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, as the applicant’s appeal against the extension of his detention was examined and dismissed on 16 September 2002 by the Wroclaw Court of Appeal, which was composed of three judges, including one who had given the first-instance decision. The next decision extending the applicant’s detention was given on 15 January 2003. The Court therefore concluded that during the period starting with the defective decision of 16 September 2002 and ending on 15
January 2003, when the decision “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” was given, the applicant’s detention was unlawful. It followed that the requirement under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention to comply with a procedure prescribed by law had not been observed and for that reason there had been a violation of that provision.
The case also concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence in that five letters sent by him to the Court in 2002 were opened and marked “censored” (violation of Article 8 of the Convention).
Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
-
-
Paid on 30/07/2010
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 violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in the present case was rather of an isolated nature and resulted from failure of a national court to comply with a procedure prescribed by the domestic law.
Article 40 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a judge is
ex lege
disqualified from his participation in a case, if,
inter alia
, he has participated, in a lower court, in the delivery of a decision subject to an appeal, or has himself delivered a ruling subject to an appeal. This provision applies not only to judgments but also to all procedural decisions during the criminal proceedings, such as, the imposition of detention on remand.
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).
General measures as to the violation of Article 8 of the Convention are examined in the context of the Klamecki (No. 2) group of cases (Application No. 31583/96).
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.