AFFAIRE WITEK CONTRE LA POLOGNE

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2013)38 [1] Witek/Polonia Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (Recherche n 13453/07, Hotărârea din 21 decembrie 2010, definitivă la 11 aprilie 2011) Comitetul miniștrilor, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenția pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale, care prevede că el supraveghează executarea hotărârilor definitive ale Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (denumite în continuare "menționate mai jos " Convenția" și "Curtea"), Având în vedere hotărârea definitivă, care a fost transmisă de Curte Comitetului în cauza de mai sus și încălcările constatate (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2011)1044E care reamintește obligația de a se adresa Tribunalului, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (3) (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(2011)1044E S DECLAMENTUL PE CARE își îndeplinește funcțiile în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d . . ACȚIUNEA REPORT [2] Informații cu privire la Measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Witek against Poland Case description Witek, aplicația nr. 13453/07, judgment of 21/12/2010, final on 11/04/2011 The caseta referitoare la aplicația unlawful detention in a psychiatric spital from 19/06/2006 to 11/01/2007 (violation of Article 5 § 1 of the convention). The applicant was placed in a psychiatric spital on 19/06/2006 on the bazis of expert evidence obtained in 1999 and 2000. It was on 7/09/2006 that the Kielce District Court ordered that the aplicant be examined by expert psychiatrists. Expertul evident confirmă necesitatea de a continua aplicațiile submitted to the District Court on 7/11/2006 and examined at a hearing held on 11/01/2007. The European Court of Human Rights (Curentul european) quend that in the circumstances of the present case the District Court had not ordeed an expert aviz promptly enough (only three months after the applicant assessment in the spital). The case also privices the delay in the procesedings by which the aplicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of her detention in the psihiatric spital (încălcarea articolului 5 alineatul (4) din Convenție). The Court observad that both the applicant mais and her lawyers against the decision of 11/01/2007, lodged on 15 January and 24 January 2007 respectively, were procesed together on 23/02/2007. The Court found that in the circumstances of the present case the delay of thirty days could not be considered compatibil with the requirement of Individual Measures The aplicant was released from the psychiatric spital on 16/11/2007. 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 in the present case were rather of an izolated nature and resulted from failure of a national scurt. Therefore, it seems that publication and disemination of the Court In this context it should be noted, that the Court.gov.pl. The judgment wind to all scurts of appeal and the General Prosecutors Office with request to disseminate it among judges and prosecutors. It will be also simte to the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution with request to include it in the trening program addresed to judges and prosecutors. In these circumstances, no other general measure appears necessary. III. 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] Adoptată de Comitetul pentru Ministrui la 7 martie 2013 la cea de-a 1164-a reuniune a Delegaților miniștrilor. [2] Informație submitted by the Polish authorities on 14 October 2011. Available only in English.

Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)38

[1]

Witek contre Pologne

Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme

(Requête n

o

13453/07, arrêt du 21 décembre 2010, définitif le 11 avril 2011)

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 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 les violations constatées (voir document

DH-DD(2011)1044E

)

;

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(2011)1044E

)

;

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

[2]

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Witek against Poland

Case description

Witek, application no. 13453/07, judgment of 21/12/2010, final on 11/04/2011

The case concerns the applicant’s unlawful detention in a psychiatric hospital from 19/06/2006 to 11/01/2007 (violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention).

The applicant was placed in a psychiatric hospital on 19/06/2006 on the basis of expert evidence obtained in 1999 and 2000. It was only on 7/09/2006 that the Kielce District Court ordered that the applicant be examined by expert psychiatrists. The expert evidence confirming the need to continue the applicant’s detention was submitted to the District Court only on 7/11/2006 and examined at a hearing held on 11/01/2007. The European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) found that in the circumstances of the present case the District Court had not ordered an expert opinion promptly enough (only three months after the applicant’s placement in the hospital).

The case also concerns the delay in the proceedings by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of her detention in the psychiatric hospital (violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention). The Court observed that both the applicant’s and her lawyer’s appeals against the decision of 11/01/2007, lodged on 15 January and 24 January 2007 respectively, were examined together on 23/02/2007. The Court found that in the circumstances of the present case the delay of thirty days 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

-

6

000 EUR

-

6

000 EUR

Paid on 01/06/2011

Individual measures

The applicant was released from the psychiatric hospital on 16/11/2007. 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 failure of a national court. Therefore, it seems that publication and dissemination of the Court’s judgment would be appropriated 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). The judgment will be sent to all courts of appeal and the General Prosecutor’s Office with request to disseminate it among judges and prosecutors. It will be also sent to the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution with request to include it in the training program addressed to judges and prosecutors.

In these circumstances, no other general measure appears necessary.

III.

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]

Adoptée par le Comité des

Ministres le 7 mars 2013 lors de la 1164e réunion des Délégués des Ministres.

[2]

Information submitted by the Polish authorities on 14 October 2011. Available only in English.