AFFAIRE FRANKOWICZ CONTRE LA POLOGNE

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012) 200 [1] Frankowicz împotriva Poloniei Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (Recherche n 53025/99, Hotărârea din 16 decembrie 2008, definitivă la 4 mai 2009) 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 către Curte Comitetului în cauza de mai sus și încălcarea constatată (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2011) [41] reamintind obligația statului pârât 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 ce a examinat bilanțul de acțiune furnizat de guvern indicând măsurile adoptate în vederea executării hotărârii, inclusiv informațiile furnizate în ceea ce privește plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2011) DECLARĂ quasures to comply with the judgment in the case of Frankowicz against Poland [3] Case description Frankowicz, application nr. 53025/99, judgment of 16/12/2008 final on 04/05/2009 Această rubrică se referă la încălcarea dreptului la liberă exprimare a expresiei datorate pentru convingerea în disciplinară procedură, a decis subsequently upheld by the Supreme Medical Court in May 1998 (violation of Article 10 of the Convention). The applicant is a gynaecologics. He was found guilty of unthical conducta in breach of the principle of professional solidarity, in violation of the Code of Ethics, and reprimanded for having pregared a critical opinie on hepatological and dermatitological treatment precribed by another doctor for one of his pacients. The European Court of Human Rights (Customer of Human Rights) quend that this sanction, although provided by law and pursuing a legitimai aim, i.e., the protection of the rights and reputation of others, was not It stresed that the applicant assessment send a critical assessment from a medical point of view of treatment received by his pacient from another doctor, which was an issues of public interesst. The dictionry pendes. approach risked discoveraging medicines from providing their pacients with an obiectiv view of their state of health and treatment received. Individual measures The prospect of reprimand, impuned in 1998, was removed from the relevant register three years after the decision to impun it became final. The Court awarded the aplicant just satisfaction in respect of moraly damage and rejected his claim for pecuniary damage due to the lack of a causal between the damage claimed and the violation found. In aceste circumstante, no further individual measure appears to be necessary. II. General Measures Legislative Measures The applicant has been conclinced on the bazis of Article 52§ 2 of the Code of Medical Ethics as stiod at the material time. On 20 September 2003 art. 52 alineatul 2 was amended and currently reads as folows: A fizician should display particular cauționar in formulating Opinii on the professional conducator of another doctor and in particular he should not in any way discredit him publicly. On 23 April 2008 the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment (SK16/07) in which it found that Article 52§ 2 of the Code of Medical Ethics was un constitutional in so far as it prohibited the truthful public assessment of the activity of a doctor by another doctor in the public interest. The supported, examined in its new wording which came into force in 2003, was not quashed as only its particular interpretation was considered to breach the constitutional normang securiting the freedom of expresie (§ 25 of the judgment). Taking into considertion the amendment of Article 52§ 2 of the Code of Medical Ethics and the judgment of the Constitutional Court, indicating its corect interpretation, no further legislative measures appear to be necessary. Publication and disemination The judgment of the European Court was translated into Polish and publicished on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.ms.gov.pl). Information about the publicity has been simte to all Courts of Appeals with request to diseminate it among judges. In addition Ministry of Health has simte the translated judgment to the President of the Supreme Medical Chamber and presidents of all regional chambers with request to disseminate it it among the members of the medical self-government. III. Concluzii of the respondent state The government considers that the measures adopted, in particular legislative changes and broad disemination of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, will prevent similar viols and that Poland has thus compliment with its under Article 46 paragraph 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 27 May 2011. [3] Numai în limba engleză.

Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)200

[1]

Frankowicz contre Pologne

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

(Requête n

o

53025/99, arrêt du 16 décembre 2008, définitif le 4 mai 2009)

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

DH-DD(2011)411E

)

;

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)411E

)

;

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

Frankowicz against Poland

[3]

Case description

Frankowicz, application no. 53025/99, judgment of 16/12/2008, final on 04/05/2009

This case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression due to his conviction in disciplinary proceedings, a decision subsequently upheld by the Supreme Medical Court in May 1998 (violation of Article 10 of the Convention).

The applicant is a gynaecologist. He was found guilty of unethical conduct in breach of the principle of professional solidarity, in violation of the Code of Ethics, and reprimanded for having prepared a critical opinion on hepatological and dermatological treatment prescribed by another doctor for one of his patients.

The European Court of Human Rights (“the European Court”) found that this sanction, although provided by law and pursuing a legitimate aim, i.e., the protection of the rights and reputation of others, was not «necessary in a democratic society». It stressed that the applicant’s opinion concerned a critical assessment from a medical point of view of treatment received by his patient from another doctor, which was an issue of public interest. The disciplinary courts’ approach risked discouraging medical practitioners from providing their patients with an objective view of their state of health and treatment received.

I.

Individual measures

The notice of reprimand, imposed in 1998, was removed from the relevant register three years after the decision to impose it became final. The Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and rejected his claim for pecuniary damage due to the lack of a causal link between the damage claimed and the violation found. In these circumstances, no further individual measure appears to be necessary.

II.

General measures

1.

Legislative measures

The applicant has been convinced on the basis of Article 52 § 2 of the Code of Medical Ethics as it stood at the material time.

On 20 September 2003 Article 52 § 2 was amended and currently reads as follows:

“A physician should display particular caution in formulating opinions on the professional conduct of another doctor and in particular he should not in any way discredit him publicly.”

On 23 April 2008 the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment (SK16/07) in which it found that Article 52 § 2 of the Code of Medical Ethics was unconstitutional in so far as it prohibited the truthful public assessment of the activity of a doctor by another doctor in the public interest. The relevant provision, examined in its new wording which came into force in 2003, was not quashed as only its particular interpretation was considered to breach the constitutional norm securing the freedom of expression (§ 25 of the judgment).

Taking into consideration the amendment of Article 52 § 2 of the Code of Medical Ethics and the judgment of the Constitutional Court, indicating its correct interpretation, no further legislative measures appear to be necessary.

2.

Publication and dissemination

The judgment of the European Court was translated into Polish and published on the internet site of the Ministry of Justice (www.ms.gov.pl). Information about the publication has been sent to all Courts of Appeals with request to disseminate it among judges. In addition Ministry of Health has sent the translated judgment to the President of the Supreme Medical Chamber and presidents of all regional medical chambers with request to disseminate it among the members of the medical self-government.

III.

Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted, in particular legislative changes and broad dissemination of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, will prevent similar violations and that Poland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 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 27 May 2011.

[3]

En anglais uniquement.