CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 7 mai 2013

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sAAD669EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8EE18E3A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.25pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s3AF0A5A1 { width:33.22pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8DE33171 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sE6A17617 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s46EE67B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt; vertical-align:top } .sB08C464B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:top } .sCE3793F { font-family:Arial; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sFA7CD25F { margin-left:10.56pt; text-align:left; padding-left:24.89pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7A147DBF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-35.45pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sD58EE33F { margin-left:13.34pt; text-align:left; padding-left:22.11pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .s779EB7AA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s872D5E5 { width:96.56%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s9BB766B1 { width:25.3%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sDA750C37 { width:28.34%; 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; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA07682BD { width:25.42%; 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; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB875EDB { width:20.94%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7022F73C { width:25.3%; 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; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFFB0E82D { width:28.34%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9FCB5BD { width:25.42%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s64308963 { width:20.94%; 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; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC9E8C161 { margin-left:13.34pt; text-align:left; padding-left:22.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s249E40E0 { margin-left:13.33pt; text-align:left; padding-left:58.87pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .sD17CF7A8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:72.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s7BB85436 { margin-left:16.11pt; text-align:left; padding-left:56.09pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)82 Biziuk (n o 2) contre Pologne Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 24580/06, arrêt du 17/01/2012, définitif le 17/04/2012)   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 7 mai 2013, lors de la 1170e 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 l’arrêt définitif qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée ;   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 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(2013)320E)   ;   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 [1] Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Biziuk against Poland (No. 2) (Anglais seulement)     Case description Biziuk (No. 2), Application No. 24580/06, judgment of 17/01/2012, final on 17/04/2012   The case concerns the applicant’s unlawful detention in a psychiatric hospital between 11 and 17   September   2006 (violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention).   In April 2005, expert psychiatrists considered that the applicant suffered from paranoia with elements of psychosis. Subsequently, on 14 September 2005 the Sokółka Disctrict Court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant and ordered his placement in a psychiatric hospital. On 11 September 2006, in another set of criminal proceedings against him, the Białystok District Court considered that the applicant’s condition had significantly improved and ordered his release. However, the hospital refused to release the applicant referring to the decision of 14 September 2005. The Court concluded that it had not been “reliably shown” that the applicant`s mental condition necessitated his confinement between 11 and 17   September 2006 and consequently – the applicant’s hospitalisation within this period was not “lawful” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.   The case also concerns the delay in the proceedings by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in the psychiatric hospital (violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention). The Court observed that the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 23/02/2006 was examined on 21/03/2006. His subsequent motions for release were also examined with some delay. The Court found that these delays 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 - 2   500 EUR 1   150 EUR   Paid on 9 July 2012   Individual measures   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 the fact that the hospital disregarded a decision which stated that the applicant’s condition had significantly improved, and based its conclusion not to release him on an earlier decision, given in another set of proceedings, ordering his confinement. Therefore, it seems that publication and dissemination of the Court’s judgment would be appropriate 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). It is also included in the training programme addressed to judges and prosecutors.   In these circumstances, no other general measure appears necessary.   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] Information submitted by the Polish authorities on 20 March 2013.