CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 5 décembre 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 } .sA54E3CC5 { font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super } .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 } .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 } .s755EE6C8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt } .sDA147922 { width:25.02pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA3C2123C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6C3B0BAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA85A9A3D { font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s54FD311 { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD3F7057D { margin-left:46.01pt; padding-left:25.44pt; font-weight:bold } .sB0A7BBB8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:71.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s15CDB60D { margin-left:34.64pt; 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 } .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 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .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 } .sF023082F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:justify } .sE3162AC9 { font-style:italic; color:#333333 } .sC1B6E2C3 { margin-left:48.78pt; padding-left:22.67pt; font-weight:bold } .sD759C786 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; vertical-align:top } .s8DD1D08A { vertical-align:top } .s7A39B843 { margin-left:51.56pt; padding-left:19.89pt; font-weight:bold } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)247 Rosenzweig et Bonded Warehouses Ltd. contre Pologne Exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   Requête n o Affaire Arrêt du Définitif le 51728/99 ROSENZWEIG ET BONDED WAREHOUSES LTD. 28/07/2005 05/06/2012 30/11/2005 22/10/2012   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 5 décembre 2013, lors de la 1186e 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 les arrêts définitifs transmis par la Cour au Comité dans cette affaire 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 les arrêts, y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2013)1236 [1] )   ;   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 on measures aiming at execution of the judgment in the case of Rosenzweig and Bonded Warehouse Ltd. against Poland (anglais uniquement)   Case description Rosenzweig and Bonded Warehouse Ltd. v. Poland, application no. 51728/99, judgment on merits of 28/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005, judgment on just satisfaction of 05/06/2012, final on 22/10/2012.   The case concerns the disproportionate control of the use of the applicants’ property. in 1994, the applicant company was granted a licence to run a bonded warehouse in Słubice and in June 1995 a further permit was issued for exporting merchandise via the border crossing in this town. In November 1995, the export permit was revoked and the customs officers ordered that the headquarters of the applicant company be closed and sealed the door, preventing it from conducting further business. Subsequently the validity of that permit was re-examined several times. Later on a new set of proceedings was instituted in which authorities revoked the licence granted in 1994. Ultimately, the decisions on revocation of the licence to run a bonded warehouse in Słubice of 18 February 1994 and of the permit for exporting merchandise of 1 June 1995 were set aside as being not in accordance with domestic law by the Main Customs Office.   The European Court observed that the withdrawal of valid permits to run a business was an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. It further noted that the withdrawal of the June 1995 license and the ensuing proceedings in which the validity of that permit was re-examined several times made it impossible for the business to operate. The European Court found that the authorities had not shown that there had been any suspicion that the operation of Bonded Warehouses Ltd was in any way unlawful or dishonest, or that the applicants had been involved in any attempt to evade customs. The European Court concluded that it had not been shown that the authorities followed any genuine and consistent policy considerations when revoking and changing their decisions concerning the operation of Bonded Warehouses Ltd. (violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1).   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   Just satisfaction   In its judgment of 05/06/2012 the European Court awarded the first applicant – Mr. Bronisław Rosenzweig 5,000 EUR as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 10,000 EUR to both applicants in respect of costs and expenses. Both amounts were paid within the time-limit.   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total amount - 5,000 EUR 10,000 EUR 15,000 EUR Paid on 04/01/2013   2. Individual measures   The decisions revoking the licence to run a bonded warehouse in Słubice of 18 February 1994 and of the permit for exporting merchandise of 1 June 1995 were set aside. Nevertheless, the applicant company did not resume its operations afterwards.   The applicants instituted the proceedings for just satisfaction claims before the domestic courts in 1996 on the basis of the same facts as invoked in the case before the European Court. By a judgment of 31 December 2007 the domestic court dismissed their compensation claim on the ground that the applicants had failed to submit evidence that they had suffered damage as a result of the decisions concerned (paragraph 16 of the judgment of 05/06/2012).   Also in the proceedings before the European Court the applicants claimed compensation in the amount of 8.000.000 EUR, in particular for lost profits which they could have derived from the company’s operation, lost merchandise and significant expenditure they had incurred in connection with setting up their business.   The European Court, in its judgment of 05/06/2012 on just satisfaction, dismissed the applicants` claims in respect of pecuniary damage as they had not been duly documented, despite the Court’s efforts to assist the applicants. In its assessment of the pecuniary damage the European Court had regard to the applicants’ conduct in the proceedings leading to the adoption of the judgment on just satisfaction: notwithstanding its request to the parties to agree on the appointment of an independent expert who would submit a report to the Court the applicants did not comply with that suggestion. Moreover, they declined the Government’s offer to pay the costs of an independent expert with a view to preparing a report on the pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants without cogent reasons for this refusal. The applicants also refused to submit their own expert estimates of the pecuniary damage within additional time limit. The European Court further noted that the estimates furnished by the applicants involved a significant degree of speculation (paragraphs 37-43 of the judgment of 05/06/2012).   Taking these circumstances into consideration, any measures of an individual nature do not appear necessary.   General measures   The case seems to be a one-off historic case, resulting from the incorrect practice of the state authorities, in particular the local customs office. The revocation of the permit and the license was not in conformity with applicable laws and was ultimately set aside by the Main Customs Office (see: individual measures). In order to prevent similar violations occurring in the future translation and dissemination of the judgment should be sufficient.   In this respect it should be noted that the Court’s judgment was translated into Polish and published at the website of the Ministry of Justice. The judgment was also disseminated among judges of the administrative courts and the Ministry of Finance arranged for dissemination of the judgment via the customs administration throughout the country. On 08/03/2006 the Customs Department of the Ministry of Finance wrote to directors of customs administration enclosing the judgment together with a summary of its main conclusions.   Taking these circumstances into consideration, additional measures of a general nature do not appear necessary.   The conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that further measures on an individual basis are not necessary in this case and that the adopted measures of a general nature will be sufficient to say that Poland fulfilled its obligations under Article 46 paragraph 1 of the Convention.   [1] Anglais uniquement. [2] Information submitted by Polish authorities on 13 November 2013