CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 26 septembre 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { 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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s24AC208E { 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 } .sF004B676 { 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 } .sB30C44B0 { 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 } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { 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 } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA85A9A3D { font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sE434DD77 { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD759C786 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; vertical-align:top } .s8DD1D08A { vertical-align:top } .s600663C3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; vertical-align:top } .sB6F0F2F2 { font-style:italic; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1FA850AB { margin-left:46.01pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:25.44pt; font-weight:bold } .s4A3FB8BB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:71.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8445EED8 { margin-left:31.34pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:4.66pt; font-weight:bold } .s30164143 { width:97.68%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sD5162D24 { width:25%; 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 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s519C9726 { width:25%; 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 } .s802402D5 { width:25%; 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 } .sCFBE9957 { width:25%; 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 } .sC9765820 { width:25%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s10D4B7A5 { width:25%; 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 } .s2C0BCC49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:9pt } .s5D0F2862 { margin-left:48.78pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:22.67pt; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .sBFC49883 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sAC1E8E07 { width:25.44pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)190 Thirteen cases against Poland Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights   Application Case Judgment of Final on 18353/03 KULIKOWSKI 19/05/2009 21/12/2010 19/08/2009 21/03/2011 2815/05 ANTONICELLI 19/05/2009 19/08/2009 41373/04 ARCIŃSKI 15/09/2009 15/12/2009 9566/10 DOMBROWSKI 18/10/2011 18/01/2012 35916/08 KORGUL 17/04/2012 17/07/2012 18063/07 MIROSŁAW WOJCIECHOWSKI 20/12/2011 20/12/2011 7272/09 NOWASZEWSKI 27/03/2012 27/03/2012 17656/06 SZPARAG 05/10/2010 05/10/2010 40459/05 URBANOWICZ 05/10/2010 05/10/2010 648/02 JAN ZAWADZKI 06/07/2010 06/10/2010 16286/07 WLODARCZYK 11/10/2011 11/10/2011 30358/04 WERSEL 13/09/2011 13/12/2011 22183/06 SZUBERT 05/07/2012 05/07/2012   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2013 at the 1179th 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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above cases and to the violations 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 judgments, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)571 );   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 these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof. Action Report [1]   Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in cases Kulikowski against Poland, Antonicelli against Poland, Jan Zawadzki against Poland, Wersel against Poland, Arciński against Poland, Urbanowicz against Poland, Szparag against Poland, Włodarczyk against Poland, Mirosław Wojciechowski against Poland, Korgul against Poland, Nowaszewski against Poland, Dombrowski against Poland, Szubert against Poland     Case description Dombrowski, application No. 9566/10, judgment of 18/10/2011, final on 18/01/2012 Nowaszewski, application No. 7272/09, judgment of 27/03/2012, final on 27/06/2012 Korgul, application No. 35916/08, judgment of 17/04/2012, final on 17/07/2012 Mirosław Wojciechowski, application No. 18063/07, judgment of 20/12/2011, final on 20/03/2012 Włodarczyk, application No. 16286/07, judgment of 11/10/2011, final on 11/01/2012 Szparag, application No. 17656/06, judgment of 05/10/2010, final on 05/01/2011 Urbanowicz, application No. 40459/05, judgment of 05/10/2010, final on 05/01/2011 Antonicelli, application No. 2815/05, judgment of 19/05/2009, final on 19/08/2009 Arciński, application No. 41373/04, judgment of 15/09/2009, final on 15/12/2009 Wersel, application No. 30358/04, judgment of 13/09/2011, final on 13/12/2011 Kulikowski, application No. 18353/03, judgment of 19/05/2009, final on 19/08/2009 Jan Zawadzki, application No. 648/02, judgment of 06/07/2010, final on 06/10/2010 Szubert, application No. 22183/06, judgment of 05/07/2012, final on 05/10/2012   The above cases concern violations of the applicants’ right of access to the Supreme Court due to the domestic courts’ failure to instruct the applicants on their further procedural rights in case of the refusal of legal-aid lawyers to assist them in filing and lodging cassation appeals on account of lack of prospects of success (violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c)).   The European Court noted in the abovementioned cases that when notified of a legal-aid lawyer’s refusal to prepare a cassation appeal, it was entirely appropriate and consistent with fairness requirements, that an appeal court indicated to an appellant what further procedural options were available to him or her, namely that the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal started to run only on the date when he or she was served with the lawyer’s refusal. The failure of the courts to inform the applicants, who were not represented by lawyers, of their procedural rights meant that they had no way of knowing that they had a new time-frame within which to find a lawyer who might be persuaded to file cassation appeal on their behalf.   In the cases: Korgul and Szubert the applicants were given erroneous information about the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal in case of the refusal of legal-aid lawyers to assist them in filing and lodging cassation appeals on account of lack of prospects of success.   In the Wersel case not only did the Regional Court refuse to grant the applicant further legal-aid lawyer’s assistance but it also communicated its refusal two days before the expiry of the time-limit for the submission of his cassation appeal. In view of the Court, the shortness of the time left to the applicant for appointing a lawyer of his choice and for preparing the intended cassation appeal did not give him a realistic opportunity of having his case brought to and defended in the cassation court in a “concreter and effective way”.   In the Kulikowski case the Court also found violations of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of unreasonable length of detention on remand.   Individual measures   The European Court awarded the applicants with just satisfaction in respect of non-material damage.       Details of just satisfaction paid to the following applicants:   Dombrowski, application No. 9566/10, judgment of 18/10/2011, final on 18/01/2012 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total -   2,000 EUR - 2 000 EUR Paid on 20/02/2012   Nowaszewski, application No. 7272/09, judgment of 27/03/2012, final on 27/06/2012 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total -   1,000 EUR 100 EUR 1 100 EUR Paid on 21/05/2012   Korgul, application No. 35916/08, judgment of 17/04/2012, final on 17/07/2012 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total -   2,000 EUR - 2 000 EUR Paid on 02/10/2012   Mirosław Wojciechowski, application No. 18063/07, judgment of 20/12/2011, final on 20/03/2012 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total -   1,000 EUR -   1 000 EUR Paid on 02/03/2012   Włodarczyk, application No. 16286/07, judgment of 11/10/2011, final on 11/01/2012 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total -   1,000 EUR -   1 000 EUR Paid on 21/12/2011   Szparag, application No. 17656/06, judgment of 05/10/2010, final on 05/01/2011 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total -   1,000 EUR -   1 000 EUR Paid on 15/12/2010   Urbanowicz, application No. 40459/05, judgment of 05/10/2010, final on 05/01/2011 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total -   1,000 EUR -   1 000 EUR Paid on 15/12/2010   Arciński, application No. 41373/04, judgment of 15/09/2009, final on 15/12/2009 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total -   1,000 EUR -   1 000 EUR Paid on 25/02/2010   Wersel, application No. 30358/04, judgment of 13/09/2011, final on 13/12/2011 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total -   2,000 EUR -   2 000 EUR Paid on 16/02/2012   Kulikowski, application No. 18353/03, judgment of 19/05/2009, final on 19/08/2009 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total -   3,000 EUR 1,150 EUR   4 150 EUR Paid on 09/06/2011   Jan Zawadzki, application No. 648/02, judgment of 06/07/2010, final on 06/10/2010 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total -   1,000 EUR - 1 000 EUR Paid on 29/12/2010   Szubert, application No. 22183/06, judgment of 05/07/2012, final on 05/10/2012 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total -   2,000 EUR - 2 000 EUR Paid on 20/09/2012     According to Article 126 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a request for a retrospective leave to appeal out of time may be lodged, if a failure to submit an appeal was due to reasons independent from the party (like a failure of the relevant authorities to instruct a party on procedural rights or erroneous information). The request should be lodged within 7 days from the date the circumstances preventing a party from submitting an appeal ceased to exist, together with the appeal. Decision on refusal to grant a retrospective leave to appeal is subject to appeal.   Mr Kulikowski was sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment by the Gliwice Regional Court on 14   August 2002. On 19 December 2002 the Katowice Court of Appeal upheld the judgment.   In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary.   General measures   Violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c)   The root of the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) in the abovementioned judgments was largely due to the incorrect practice of domestic courts who, when notifying appellants of a legal-aid lawyer’s refusal to prepare a cassation appeal, did not indicate what further procedural options were available, and in particular – that the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal started to run on the date of being served with the refusal. It should be noted that, after the facts of these cases, the Supreme Court gave a series of decisions ruling that in case of a legal-aid lawyer’s refusal to assist an appellant in filing and lodging cassation appeals because of a lack of prospects of success, the appellate court is obliged to inform the appellant about the position of his lawyer and the right to lodge a cassation appeal prepared by a lawyer of his own choice and to notify the appellant that the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal started to run on the date of being served with the refusal (see, inter alia : decision of 26/09/2011 in case No. II KZ 42/11, decision of 22/12/2009 in case No. III KZ 87/09, decision of 18/11/2009 in case No. II KZ 54/09, decision of 12/12/2008 in case No. IV KZ 82/08, decision of 06/05/2008 in case No. II KZ 16/08).   Moreover, in order to avoid similar violations in the future, the translation of main points of the Court’s judgment in Kulikowski case and translation of the judgment in Wersel case were published on the website of the Ministry of Justice. The judgments of the European Court were also included into the curricula of trainings for judges and prosecutors.   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).   In these circumstances, no other general measure appears necessary.   III.   Conclusions of the responding state   The Government considers that further individual measures are not necessary in the present case and that the general measures adopted will be sufficient to conclude that Poland has complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention in respect to the breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   [1] Information submitted by the Polish authorities on May 16th 2013.