CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s25DB3F80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s67F06EFC { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#000000 } .s42BBCF49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .s9731AE5E { margin-left:10.56pt; text-align:left; padding-left:26.19pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s88DA066A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:72.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s1C60E42A { text-align:left; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s38F34D94 { width:22.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .s8A4FD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s43E2EF8E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt; vertical-align:top } .sEDC65356 { margin-left:13.33pt; text-align:left; padding-left:23.42pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s95F15654 { margin-left:16.11pt; text-align:left; padding-left:20.64pt; 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 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)82 Biziuk (No. 2) against Poland Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights   (Application No. 24580/06, judgment of 17/01/2012, final on 17/04/2012)   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 7 May 2013 at the 1170th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),   Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established;   Recalling the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it is party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)320E );   Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof. Action report [1] Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Biziuk against Poland (No. 2)   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.