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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .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 } .s97FE94B5 { width:26.96pt; display:inline-block } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)248 Bar-Bau Sp. z o. o. contre Pologne Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   Requête n o Affaire Arrêt du Définitif le 11656/08 BAR-BAU SP. Z O. O. 10/04/2012 10/04/2012   (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 l’arrêt définitif 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 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)1242 [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 Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the Bar-Bau v. Poland case (anglais uniquement)   Case description   Bar-Bau, application No. 11656/08, judgment of 10/04/2012, final on 10/04/2012   The case concerns the Supreme Court`s refusal in 2007 to allow a cassation appeal in the civil proceedings initiated by the applicant, a limited liability company, against the State Treasury for damages caused by criminal proceedings instituted against its president..   The Regional Court refused the civil claim and this judgment was upheld on appeal; the applicant lodged a cassation appeal on points of law. The Supreme Court sitting as a single judge in camera refused to allow it, concluding that none of the conditions of admissibility of a cassation appeal was met in this case. However, it made a full analysis only of one of the grounds for admissibility of the cassation appeal - the alleged problem of the existence of an important question of law, leaving without further consideration the second ground that was of crucial importance for the applicant in the particular circumstances of the case – a need for interpretation of the question of law. The Supreme Court confined itself to finding that there was no need to proceed with interpretation of the provisions governing the responsibility of the state (Article 417 and 418 amended former Civil Code) and no issue arose as to its application.   The European Court noted that such a choice of the Supreme Court had placed the applicant in a situation of legal uncertainty. Indeed, the facts in support of the second ground and the proceedings that followed had taken place during a transitional period between the finding of invalidity of the legal framework governing the responsibility of the Treasury and its amendment by the legislature. The legislative change had placed the applicant at a disadvantage and therefore it had seemed legitimate for the applicant to get a clear answer to a new question of law, suffering from a lack of uniform interpretation by the courts. In such circumstances the Court noted that the merits of the second ground of cassation appeal were of some importance to the applicant company.   In light of these considerations, and taking into account the particular circumstances of the case, the European Court found that the failure to give reasons for refusing the cassation appeal to the applicant company was not proportionate to the aim of ensuring legal certainty and proper administration of justice (violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention).     I.   Individual measures   1.   Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 4,000 EUR - 4,000 EUR Due on: 10/07/2012   Paid on 28/06/2012   2.   Other individual measures   Reopening of the domestic civil proceedings in order to lead to restitutio in integrum is not possible in this case because of the importance attached by the domestic legislation to the principle of the legal security, also protected by the European Convention.   In any case, the Government recalls that the applicant has not requested any just satisfaction for pecuniary damage, and that the Court has granted a just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained. If nevertheless, in the applicant`s opinion, the consequences of violation found in this case are not adequately remedied by the award of just satisfaction by the European Court it may submit a claim for compensation against the State Treasury for the so-called “court unlawfulness” in relation to the Supreme Court`s decision on refusal to allow the applicant`s cassation appeal, pursuant to articles 4171 § 2 and 4241b of the Civil Code. This claim would refer to the Supreme Court`s decision of 08/08/2007, which “unlawfulness” was confirmed by the European Court in the judgment of 10/04/2012.   In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary.     II.   General measures   The violation in this case arose from an isolated decision by a single Supreme Court`s judge. The President of the National Council of the Judiciary of Poland received the judgment and was asked to disseminate it amongst the judges of the Supreme Court.   In addition, the judgment, as many of the other European Court’s judgments, was included in the curricula of the trainings for judges and prosecutors carried out by the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution.   In this regard, particular attention should be drawn to the set of systemic trainings held in 2012. These trainings were organized for judges of appellate courts and designed to inform about the most common violations of the Convention concerning the Polish justice system. Approximately 700 judges took part in these trainings so far. The trainings will continue throughout 2013 and in subsequent years. It is estimated that in five to seven years all judges should have undergone such training.   Moreover, the European Court`s judgment in the case of Bar-Bau was translated and published at the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.ms.gov.pl).   In these circumstances, no other general measure appears necessary.   III.   Conclusions of the responding State   The Government consider 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.   [1] Anglais uniquement.