CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 6 décembre 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s5EE9E87A { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sBFC49883 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB286AABC { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s10D4A1AA { margin-left:5.25pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s460A4CD6 { height:18pt } .s4C8E8372 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s3774D542 { margin-top:2.6pt; margin-left:16.75pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:10pt } .s1B457C45 { font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .s6923D5E4 { font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:0.15pt } .s3F6AE34E { font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.3pt } .s1A1E7C45 { font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.25pt } .s9A51AA96 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s6649B7E { margin-top:2.6pt; margin-left:6.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:10pt } .sDA6811EA { margin-top:2.6pt; margin-left:15.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:10pt } .s4F60E34E { font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sC5F972AF { font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:0.1pt } .sA608C715 { font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:0.05pt } .s9D943874 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sBA66072B { margin:2.6pt 42.4pt 0pt 43.05pt; text-align:center; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:10pt } .sB3A7671E { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s7F583241 { margin:2.35pt 51.9pt 0pt 53.15pt; text-align:center; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:10pt } .sF4EDB80C { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sF01CD6F6 { margin-top:2.35pt; margin-left:33.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:10pt } .s448DDAF1 { letter-spacing:0.1pt } .sCC1A9D73 { letter-spacing:-0.3pt } .s689ACF7B { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s48988180 { margin-top:2.6pt; margin-left:33.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:10pt } .s74C12B71 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sC1FE6784 { margin-top:2.6pt; margin-right:4.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:10pt } .s4765E34E { font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)199 [1] Gajewski contre Pologne Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 27225/05, arrêt du 27 décembre 2010, définitif le 21 mars 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 la violation constatée (voir document DH-DD(2011)1010 )   ;   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)1010 )   ;   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 Gajewski against Polsce [3]     Case description   Gajewski, application no. 27225/05, judgment of 21/12/2010, final on 21/03/2011 The case concerns the lack of impartiality of the court that determined the applicant’s claim in insolvency proceedings, in which the applicant had been appointed a trustee, on the ground that one of the judges on the bench submitted to the court a motion concerning calculation of the applicant’s remuneration (violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention).   The European Court of Human Rights observed that the mere fact that a judge had already taken pre-trial decisions cannot by itself be regarded as justifying concerns about his or her impartiality. However, in the present case the same issue, i.e. the amount of the applicant’s remuneration, was addressed by the judge in her motion and later by the court in its decision.   The Court further observed that, despite the fact that the court of second instance had all the powers to remedy the situation, it had failed to do so and the procedural defect had not been rectified.   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   1. Details of just satisfaction   P e c u niary da m age N o n- p e c u niary da m age C o st s a n d e x p e ns e s T o tal - 3,000 E U R - 3,000 EUR P aid o n 09/0 6 /2011   2. Individual measures   The Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It further found that there was not any casual link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged. In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary.   II.   General measures   The violation of Article 6 § 1 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 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 information about its publication was sent to all courts of appeal and the General Prosecutor’s Office with request to disseminate it among judges and prosecutors. It was also sent to the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution. 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 6 décembre 2012 lors de la 1157e réunion des Délégués des Ministres. [2] Information submitted by the Polish authorities on 14 October 2011. [3] En anglais uniquement.