CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 24 octobre 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 } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s37A80994 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.25pt } .sF480646D { width:17.92pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA3C2123C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sBE30FE25 { text-align:justify; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s6CA3F3E5 { width:25.44pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4A3FB8BB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:71.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA0FE7239 { margin-left:48.79pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:4.66pt; font-weight:bold } .s600663C3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; vertical-align:top } .sC83B07C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sC9D635A { font-weight:bold; color:#888888 } .s30164143 { width:97.68%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sA4EE6053 { width:50%; 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 } .s2DFD0339 { width:50%; 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 } .sB6F0F2F2 { font-style:italic; vertical-align:top } .s33923AE8 { font-weight:bold; vertical-align:top } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s819F2543 { text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:top } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)215 Łuczak contre Pologne Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 77782/01, arrêt du 27 novembre 2007, définitif le 2 juin 2008)   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 24 octobre 2013, lors de la 1182e 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 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 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)953 )   ;   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. A ction report [1] Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case Łuczak against Poland (anglais uniquement)   Case description Łuczak, Application No. 77782/01, judgment of 27/11/2007, final on 02/06/2008   The case concerns the discrimination of the applicant on account of his nationality (French) in the admission to the farmers’ social security scheme (violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).   The applicant is a French national living in Poland for several years, in employment for a number of years and consequently affiliated to the general social security scheme carried by the Social Security Board. In 1997, the applicant bought a farm and decided to make a living from it. On 2 December 1997, the applicant requested the Częstochowa branch of the Farmers’ Social Security Fund ( Kasa Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia Społecznego ) to admit him to the farmers’ social security scheme. This application was refused on 16   December 1997 on the grounds that he was not a Polish national – a condition provided by the Farmers’ Social Security Act of 20 December 1990.   As a result, the applicant was not granted the right to social insurance in case of incapacity for work caused by illness, disability, old age or parenthood. It should be noted, however, that under the Farmers’ Social Security Act in its version in force until 2 May 2004, an uninsured farmer could benefit from surrogate insurance protection on account of his/her spouse’s being covered by the farmers’ social insurance scheme. Pursuant to Articles 10(1)(2) and 10(1)(4) of the Farmers’ Social Security Act, as from 1 January 1997 an insured farmer’s closest uninsured relative was entitled to a one-off compensation, if the said relative was not the insured farmer’s employee and suffered injuries in a work-related accident that took place while helping the farmer in his/her agricultural business. Under this provision, a spouse is also considered a farmer’s closest relative. In the event of a closest relative’s death due to a farm work-related accident, entitled members of his/her family were eligible for a one-off compensation. Compensation for a work-related accident in agriculture was awarded to the closest relative on the same terms and in the same amount as were applicable to an insured farmer.   The European Court found that the difference in treatment in admission to the Polish farmers’ social security scheme on account of the applicant’s nationality was not justified by the general interest and the domestic authorities had not adduced any reasonable and objective justification for the distinction which meets the requirements of Article 14 of the Convention, even having regard to their margin of appreciation in the area of social security.                    Individual measures   Payment of just satisfaction Just satisfaction was awarded by the European Court for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage (covering also unpaid contributions towards his retirement pension).   Łuczak Application No. 77782/01 Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 5   000 EUR 5   000 EUR 10   000 EUR Paid on 15/07/2008   Individual measures Individual measures in this case are closely linked to general measures. From the change in the law in 2004, the applicant had the possibility to join the social insurance for farmers scheme (see general measures for more information).   In addition, the applicant could apply to the President of the Farmers’ Social Security Fund for extraordinarily granting him the farmer’s pension in specific circumstances.   In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary. II.   General measures   On 2 April 2004, the 1990 Act was amended because of Poland’s accession to the European Union, so that nationals of EU member States and foreign nationals having residence permits could join the farmers’ scheme. It entered into force on 2 May 2004. Consequently, the difference in treatment in the farmers’ scheme was remedied.   Pursuant to article 55 of the Farmers’ Social Security Act of 20/12/1990 ( ustawa o ubezpieczeniu społecznym rolników ), there exists a possibility to apply to the President of the Farmers’ Social Security Fund for extraordinarily granting the farmer’s pension in specific circumstances, even if the person concern does not comply with all the requirements provided by law , on condition of being deprived of other financial resources and not having the possibility to get them due to the age or state of health.   When determining the amount of farmers’ retirement and disability pensions, each year of a farmer’s social insurance coverage corresponds to 1% of the lowest retirement pension, while the State Treasury pays for the remaining share, i.e. 85% to 95% of the lowest retirement pension. Consequently, although contributions themselves have a very limited impact on the size of a pension, a pension may not be awarded without them. Thus the amount of a retirement pension that the President of the Agricultural Social Insurance Fund can award by way of exception is comparable to other benefits. Article 55(2) of the Farmers’ Social Security Act only provides that a benefit awarded by way of exception may not exceed the amount of a corresponding retirement or disability insurance benefit. Consequently, the period during which a given person was not covered by this insurance on account of his/her lack of Polish citizenship will not result in his/her benefit being lower than allowances that are awarded under a standard procedure. On the other hand, such a benefit will not be higher than standard allowances either.   It should also be added that if the insurance period of a person claiming a farmers’ retirement pension exceeds twenty years, the share of this pension financed by the State Treasury decreases by 0.5% for each year over the 20th year of insurance, but may not be below 85% of the lowest retirement pension. A characteristic feature of these benefits is the fact that they level off when the insurance period exceeds 20 years and that their amounts are comparable.   The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development has consulted the head office of the Agricultural Social Insurance Fund on all measures that have been taken in this case so far. Therefore, the judgement in the Łuczak v. Poland case was disseminated among all relevant bodies.   In these circumstances, no other general measure appears necessary.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent 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.   [1] Information submitted by the Polish authorities on 4 September 2013