Miroslaw Garlicki și alte 2 cauze împotriva Poloniei

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2013)84 Mirosław Garlicki, Stokłosa și Pohoska/Polonia Execuția hotărârilor Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (Recherche n 36961/07, Hotărârea din 14/06/2011, definitivă la 14/09/2011 Cerere nr 32602/08, Hotărârea din 03/11/2011, definitivă la 03/022012 Cerere n 33530/06, Hotărârea din 10/01/2012/2012, definitivă la 10/04/2012/2012) (adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 7 mai 2013, la cea de-a 1170-a reuniune a delegaților miniștrilor) Comitetul miniștrilor, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenția pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale, care prevede monitorizarea de către Comitet a executării 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 ; și măsuri generale de prevenire a unor încălcări similare ; Am invitat guvernul de la statul pârât să informeze Comitetul cu privire la măsurile luate pentru a se conforma obligațiilor După examinarea bilanțului de acțiune furnizat de guvern care indică măsurile adoptate în vederea executării hotărârilor, inclusiv a informațiilor furnizate în ceea ce privește plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2013) 319E), asigurându-se că au fost adoptate toate măsurile prevăzute la art. 46 alineatul (1), DECLARĂ quasures to comply with the judgments in cases Mirosław Garlicki against Poland, Stokłosa and Pohoska against Poland (english) Case description Mirosław Garlicki, Application No. 36921/07, judgment of 14/06/2011, final on 14/09/2011 Stokłosa, Application No. 32602/08, judgment of 03/11/2011, final on 03/02/2012/ Pohoska, Application No. 33530/06, judgment of 10/01/2012/2012, final on 10/04/2012/2012 The cases Mirosław Garlicki v. Poland and Stokłosa v. Poland privind încălcarea drepturilor de liberătate și securitate ale persoanelor fizice (junior judges) who detained them on remand, did not offer the guarantees of independence required of an In the case Pohoska v. Poland the applicant Electroluxs right to an independent instance was violated due to thefact that the trial Court,

which ruled in August 2005 on a criminal incarcature against her, was commandit of an assocement (violation of Article 6 § 1 of the convention). The European Court noted that the Polish Constitutional Court, already in its judgment of 24/10/2007, had considered that the possibility of conferring the exercition of Judicial powers on assessment, provided for under Article 135 § 1 of the Law of 2001 on the Organization of Courts (ustawa Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych, În cazul în care, în conformitate cu art. 4 alineatul (1) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. The European Court considered that the assessment in the applicants maies lacked independence, as they could have been removed by the Minister of Justice at any time during their term of office and that there were prin urmare no adequate guarantees protecting them against the arbitrary expercese of that power by the Minister.

Individual measures Just satisfaction was granted by the Court to the applicants in cases Mirosław Garlicki v. Poland and Pohoska v. Poland. Mirosław Garlicki v. Poland Pecuniary damage No-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 6 000 EUR Paid on 5 decembrie 2011 Pohoska v. Poland Pecuniary damage No-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 000 EUR Paid on 14 March 2012 The applicants in cases Mirosław Garlicki v. Poland and Stokłosa v. Poland are no longer detained on reman. The European Court informated that in the Stokłosa case the finding of a încălcarea Constituted in itself sucient just satisfaction for any moraly damage suffered. Concerning the Pohoska căsuța, domestic law provides for a possibility of reopening of criminal proceedings when such a need results, inter allia , from a judgment of the Court [art. 540 alineatul (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure].

Formal proceedings, for example raported to the impozitare of detention on remand, not terminated with a decision on merits, cannot be reopened. In aceste circumstante, no other individual measure appears necessary. II. General Measures These cases are similar to the case Henryk Urban and Ryszard Urban v. Poland, Application No. 23614/08, in which the Committee has closed its supervision, see: DH-DD(2011) 683E, CM/ResDH(2012) 197. In these circumstances, no further general measure appears necessary. III. Concluzii of respondent State State The government considers that no individual measures are necessary in the present case and that the general Measures adopted, notably the legislative changes, will be sucient to conclusion that Poland has commised with its obligations under Articol 46, paragraph 1 of the convention in respect to the breach of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the convention.

[1] Informații submitted by the Polish authorities on 20 March 2013.

Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)84 Mirosław Garlicki, Stokłosa et Pohoska contre Pologne Exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (Requête n o 36921/07, arrêt du 14/06/2011, définitif le 14/09/2011 Requête n o 32602/08, arrêt du 03/11/2011, définitif le 03/02/2012 Requête n o 33530/06, arrêt du 10/01/2012, définitif le 10/04/2012) (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 les arrêts définitifs qui ont été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans les affaires ci-dessus et les violations constatées ; 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 les arrêts y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2013)319E) ; 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 ces affaires et DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.

Action report [1] Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in cases Mirosław Garlicki against Poland, Stokłosa and Pohoska against Poland (Anglais seulement) Case description Mirosław Garlicki, Application No. 36921/07, judgment of 14/06/2011, final on 14/09/2011 Stokłosa, Application No. 32602/08, judgment of 03/11/2011, final on 03/02/2012 Pohoska, Application No. 33530/06, judgment of 10/01/2012, final on 10/04/2012 The cases Mirosław Garlicki v. Poland and Stokłosa v. Poland concern the violation of the applicants’ right to liberty and security as the assessors (junior judges) who detained them on remand, did not offer the guarantees of independence required of an “officer” by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention).

In the case Pohoska v. Poland the applicant’s right to an independent tribunal was violated due to the fact that the trial court, which ruled in August 2005 on a criminal charge against her, was composed of an assessor (violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention). The European Court noted that the Polish Constitutional Court, already in its judgment of 24/10/2007, had considered that the possibility of conferring the exercise of judicial powers on assessors, provided for under Article 135 § 1 of the Law of 2001 on the Organisation of Courts ( ustawa Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych, “the 2001 Act”), fell short of constitutional requirements because assessors did not enjoy the necessary guarantees of independence, notably vis-à-vis the Minister of Justice.

The European Court considered that the assessor in the applicants’ cases lacked independence, as they could have been removed by the Minister of Justice at any time during their term of office and that there were therefore no adequate guarantees protecting them against the arbitrary exercise of that power by the Minister. I. Individual measures Just satisfaction was granted by the Court to the applicants in cases Mirosław Garlicki v. Poland and Pohoska v. Poland. Mirosław Garlicki v. Poland Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 6 000 EUR 2 000 EUR Paid on 5 December 2011 Pohoska v. Poland Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 1 000 EUR EUR Paid on 14 March 2012 The applicants in cases Mirosław Garlicki v. Poland and Stokłosa v. Poland are no longer detained on remand.

The European Court indicated that in the Stokłosa case the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered. Concerning the Pohoska case, domestic law provides for a possibility of reopening of criminal proceedings when such a need results, inter alia , from a judgment of the Court (Article 540 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Formal proceedings, for example related to the imposition of detention on remand, not terminated with a decision on merits, cannot be reopened. In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary. II. General measures These cases are similar to the case Henryk Urban and Ryszard Urban v. Poland, Application No. 23614/08, in which the Committee has closed its supervision, see: DH-DD(2011)683E, CM/ResDH(2012)197.

In these circumstances, no further general measure appears necessary. III. Conclusions of the respondent State The government considers that no individual measures are necessary in the present case and that the general measures adopted, notably the legislative changes, will be sufficient to conclude that Poland has complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention in respect to the breach of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention. [1] Information submitted by the Polish authorities on 20 March 2013.