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 } .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 } .s42BBCF49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sAE0DB56D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:71.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s6A2A93E6 { width:97.82%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s940A67C4 { width:24.82%; 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 } .s94A0A0B3 { width:27.8%; 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 } .sC253987 { width:24.8%; 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 } .s3ED84F60 { width:22.58%; 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 } .sB3BCDF84 { width:24.82%; 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 } .s3258A071 { width:27.8%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6DFD6AA5 { width:24.8%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E322351 { width:22.58%; 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 } .sF49E6591 { margin-left:13.33pt; text-align:left; padding-left:58.12pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s9819B2BA { margin-left:13.34pt; text-align:left; padding-left:58.66pt; 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)83 Miernicki contre Pologne Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 10847/02, arrêt du 27/10/2009, définitif le 10/05/2010)   (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 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   ;   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(2013)317E)   ;   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 Miernicki against Poland (Anglais seulement)   Case description Miernicki, Application No. 10847/02, judgment of 27/10/2009, final on 10/05/2010   This case concerns violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, as the applicant’s appeal against the extension of his detention was examined and dismissed on 16 September 2002 by the Wroclaw Court of Appeal, which was composed of three judges, including one who had given the first-instance decision. The next decision extending the applicant’s detention was given on 15 January 2003. The Court therefore concluded that during the period starting with the defective decision of 16 September 2002 and ending on 15   January 2003, when the decision “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” was given, the applicant’s detention was unlawful. It followed that the requirement under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention to comply with a procedure prescribed by law had not been observed and for that reason there had been a violation of that provision.   The case also concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence in that five letters sent by him to the Court in 2002 were opened and marked “censored” (violation of Article 8 of the Convention).   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 1 500 EUR - 1 500 EUR Paid on 30/07/2010   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 violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in the present case was rather of an isolated nature and resulted from failure of a national court to comply with a procedure prescribed by the domestic law.   Article 40 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a judge is ex lege disqualified from his participation in a case, if, inter alia , he has participated, in a lower court, in the delivery of a decision subject to an appeal, or has himself delivered a ruling subject to an appeal. This provision applies not only to judgments but also to all procedural decisions during the criminal proceedings, such as, the imposition of detention on remand.   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).   General measures as to the violation of Article 8 of the Convention are examined in the context of the Klamecki (No. 2) group of cases (Application No. 31583/96).   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.