Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012) 1998 [1] Nowinski împotriva Poloniei Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (Recherche n 25924/06, Hotărârea din 20 octombrie 2009, definitivă la 20 ianuarie 2010) 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 încălcarea constatată (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2011) 685E care reamintește obligația de a se adresa 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(2011) 685E SÕ, 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 Nowiński against Poland [3] Case description Nowiński, application nr. 25924/06, judgment of 20/10/2009, final on 20/01/2010 Caseta referitoare la o încălcare a dreptului de acces la acces la un scurt în ceea ce îi permite să compenseze against the Wroclaw Court of Appeal was declarad inadmisibil on the group that the aplicant had not provided his home address (violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention). The applicant provided the Wroclaw Regional Court with his work address and post-office box address for cleence. However, the court considered that in spite of that information he had not informated his The European Court of Human Rights found that the aplicant, who was the plangeiff in the case, was in permanent contact with the domestic Courts and it was in his best interest to ensure the proper course of the procesedings. He had prin urmare provided a fixd address through which could be contacted. The Court resaled that the right of access to a court is not absolutte. It may be subject to limitations, provided those those limitations pure a legitimate aim and are proportionalate. The Courtceptd that main a requirement to informate a place of ressidence servind a legitique aim [...] However, it considered that the strict application [of the rule] in the appicants The Court conclused that as mainment failed to submit any arguments making it posibil to assess the need for the restrictions impuned on the applicant, the Court cannot but conclusion that the requirements of Article 6 § 1 were not compliment with The amount awarded by the Court (1,000 EUR, approximately 4,000 PLN) exceed the amount claimed by the applicant in domestic proceedings (de exemplu, 3,000 PLN, see § 11 of the Court Încălcarea articolului 6 alineatul (1) din Convenție în prezenta casetă a fost de rather of incidental nature and resulted from excesiv formalm of național scurts. Therefore, it seems that in order to avoid similar in the viitoare publicity and disemination of the Court In this context it should be noted that the Court as judgment was translated into Polish and publicished on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.ms.gov.pl). The judgment has been simte to all scurts of appeal and the General Prosecutours Office with request to disseminate it among judges and prosecutors. It has been 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, and to the Supreme Court. In these circumstances, no further general measure appears necessary. III. Concluzii of the respondent state The Government considers that further 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 in respect to the breach of the article 6 § 1 of the convention. [1] Adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 6 decembrie 2012 în cadrul celei de-a 1157-a reuniuni a delegaților miniștrilor. [2] Informație submitted by the Polish authorities on 1 August 2011. [3] Numai în limba engleză.
Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)198
[1]
Nowinski contre Pologne
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
(Requête n
o
25924/06, arrêt du 20 octobre 2009, définitif le 20 janvier 2010)
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 la violation constatée (voir document
)
;
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
)
;
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.
[2]
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Nowiński against Poland
[3]
Case description
Nowiński, application no. 25924/06, judgment of 20/10/2009, final on 20/01/2010
The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court in that his claim for compensation against the Wroclaw Court of Appeal was declared inadmissible on the sole ground that the applicant had not provided his home address (violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention).
The applicant provided the Wroclaw Regional Court with his work address and post-office box address for correspondence. However, the court considered that in spite of that information he had not indicated his “place of residence” within the meaning of Article 126 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, on 16/05/2005 the Regional Court refused his claim.
The European Court of Human Rights found that the applicant, who was the plaintiff in the case, was in permanent contact with the domestic courts and it was in his best interest to ensure the proper course of the proceedings. He had therefore provided a fixed address through which he could be contacted. The Court recalled that the right of access to a court is not absolute. It may be subject to limitations, provided those limitations pursue a legitimate aim and are proportionate. The Court accepted that “a requirement to indicate a place of residence served a legitimate aim [...] However, it considered that the strict application [of the rule] in the applicant’s case” was disproportionate (see §34 of the Court’s judgment). The Court concluded that as “the Government failed to submit any arguments making it possible to assess the need for the limitations imposed on the applicant, the Court cannot but conclude that the requirements of Article 6 § 1 were not complied with” (§35 of the Court’s judgment).
I. Just satisfaction and individual measures
1.
J
u
st satis
f
a
c
tion
Pe
c
u
n
i
a
ry
d
a
m
ag
e
N
o
n
-
pecuniary
d
a
m
ag
e
C
o
s
t
a
nd
e
x
pe
n
s
es
A
m
o
u
n
t
-
1,00
0
EUR
-
1,00
0
E
UR
P
a
id
o
n
15
/
04
/
20
1
0
The amount awarded by the Court (1,000 EUR, approximately 4,000 PLN) exceed the amount claimed by the applicant in domestic proceedings (i.e., 3,000 PLN, see § 11 of the Court’s judgment).
In these circumstances, no further individual measure appears necessary.
Violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the present case was rather of incidental nature and resulted from excessive formalism of national courts. Therefore, it seems that in order to avoid similar violations in the future publication and dissemination of the Court’s judgment would be appropriated.
In this context it should be noted that the Court’s judgment was translated into Polish and published on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice (www.ms.gov.pl). The judgment has been sent to all courts of appeal and the General Prosecutor’s Office with request to disseminate it among judges and prosecutors. It has been 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, and to the Supreme Court.
In these circumstances, no further general measure appears necessary.
The Government considers that further 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 in respect to the breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
[1]
Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 décembre 2012 lors de la 1157e réunion des Délégués des Ministres.
[2]
Information submitted by the Polish authorities on 1 August 2011.
[3]
En anglais uniquement.