Garycki și Finster împotriva Poloniei

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2013)163 Două cauze împotriva Poloniei Executarea hotărârilor Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (Garycki, cererea nr. 14348/02, Hotărârea din 6 februarie 2007, definitivă la 6 mai 2007 Finster, cererea nr. 24860/08, Hotărârea din 8 februarie 2011, definitivă la 8 mai 2011) (adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 11 septembrie 2013, cu ocazia celei de-a 1177-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 ca Comitetul să supravegheze executarea 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 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 obligației După ce a examinat bilanțul de acțiune furnizat de guvern indicând măsurile adoptate pentru a executa hotărârile, inclusiv informațiile furnizate în ceea ce privește plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2013)94) ; și având certitudinea că au fost adoptate toate măsurile prevăzute la art. 46 alineatul (1), DECLAMENTUL PE CARE își îndeplinește funcțiile în temeiul art. 46 alin. (2) din Convenție în aceste cazuri și DECIDE d'en ain' la examen.

Acțiune Report (numai în limba engleză) Informații cu privire la Measures to comply with the judgment in the cases of Garycki v. Poland and Finster v. Poland Case description Garycki, Application No. 14348/02, judgment of 06/07/2007, final on 06/05/2007 Finster, Application No. 24860/08, judgment of 08/02/2011, final on 08/05/2011 Both cases on the violation of the presemption of inocența due to the domestic pendes In the case of Garycki the Katowice Court of Appeal in its decision of 30 October 2001 and in the case of Finster the Gdańsk Court of Appeal in its decision of 19 March 2008 stated, before their guilt had been proved acording to law, that the evidence against the aplicants indicated that they had committed the offices with which they had been încarced.

In its judgments, the European Court of Human Rights emphasised that there was a fundamental diference to be made between a statement that someone was Merely suspected of having committed a infraction and a clear judicial declaration, in the absence of a final convingere, that the individual had committed the crime in intrebare. The Court underlined that there could be no justification for a Court of law to make a premature pronouncement of this kind. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures Details of just satisface Case Pecuniary damage No-pecuniary damage Cost and expenses Total Finster €2 000 000 Paid on 29/09/2011 Individual measures In the case of Garycki, the applicant was convicted and sended to nine years.

imprisonment in decembrie 2002. The Court held that find of viols constituted in itself sucient just satisfaction for the moraly damage. In the case of Finster detention on remand was lifted on 26 June 2008. The Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of moraly damage. In aceste circumstante, no other individual measure appears necessary. II. General Measures Violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention Încălcarea articolului 6 alineatul (2) din Convenție în prezenta casetă a fost considerată ca fiind o încălcare a naturii și resulted from failure of special national scurts. Therefore, it seems that the publication and disemination of the Court as judgment would be asignated in order to avoid similar in the viitor.

In this context it should be noted, that the Court as judgments were translated into Polish and publicished on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.ms.gov.pl). The issues raised in the judgments were also inclusded in the curricula of trenings for judges and prosecutors organizad by the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution. In aceste circumstante, no other general measure appears necessary. Violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention General Measures are examined in the context of the Trzaska group of cases (Application No. 25792/94). III.

Concluzii of the responding State State The government considers that other individual measures are not necessary in the present cases 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 with respect to the breach of Article 6, paragraph 2 of the convention.

Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)163 Deux affaires contre la Pologne Exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (Garycki, requête n o 14348/02, arrêt du 6 février 2007, définitif le 6 mai 2007 Finster, requête n o 24860/08, arrêt du 8 février 2011, définitif le 8 mai 2011) (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 11 septembre 2013, lors de la 1177e 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)94) ; 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 (anglais uniquement) Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the cases of Garycki v. Poland and Finster v. Poland Case description Garycki, Application No. 14348/02, judgment of 06/02/2007, final on 06/05/2007 Finster, Application No. 24860/08, judgment of 08/02/2011, final on 08/05/2011 Both cases concern the violation of the presumption of innocence due to the domestic courts’ grounds for their decisions on the prolongation of the applicants’ detention (violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention) and the excessive length of detention on remand (violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention).

In the case of Garycki the Katowice Court of Appeal in its decision of 30 October 2001 and in the case of Finster the Gdańsk Court of Appeal in its decision of 19 March 2008 stated, before their guilt had been proved according to law, that the evidence against the applicants indicated that they had committed the offences with which they had been charged. In its judgments, the European Court of Human Rights emphasised that there was a fundamental distinction to be made between a statement that someone was merely suspected of having committed a crime and a clear judicial declaration, in the absence of a final conviction, that the individual had committed the crime in question. The Court underlined that there could be no justification for a court of law to make a premature pronouncement of this kind.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures Details of just satisfaction Case Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Cost and expenses Total Finster - €2 000 - €2 000 Paid on 29/09/2011 Individual measures In the case of Garycki, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment in December 2002. The Court held that finding of violations constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage. In the case of Finster detention on remand was lifted on 26 June 2008. The Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary. II. General measures Violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention The violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention in the present cases was rather of an isolated nature and resulted from failure of specific national courts.

Therefore, it seems that the 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 judgments were translated into Polish and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.ms.gov.pl). The issues raised in the judgments were also included in the curricula of trainings for judges and prosecutors organised by the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution. In these circumstances, no other general measure appears necessary. Violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention General measures are examined in the context of the Trzaska group of cases (Application No. 25792/94).

III. Conclusions of the responding State The government considers that other individual measures are not necessary in the present cases 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 with respect to the breach of Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Convention.