CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 11 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 } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBFC49883 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA85A9A3D { font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s95444FF0 { width:29.84pt; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6865A7DE { font-style:italic; list-style-position:inside } .sC4D440AF { width:22.06pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC83B07C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sC11466FB { width:99.98%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s247AA560 { width:29.96%; 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 } .s724F6D43 { width:17.5%; 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 } .sCF18EA08 { width:17.54%; 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 } .s1F74B7B2 { width:29.96%; 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 } .s5BEC6F27 { width:17.5%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1FAA22AB { width:17.54%; 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 } .s58D506FF { text-align:justify; font-style:italic; list-style-position:inside } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sC3C3BCB8 { width:27.07pt; display:inline-block } .sE23107D { width:24.29pt; display:inline-block } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)163 Deux affaires contre la Pologne Exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Garycki, requête n o 14348/02, arrêt du 6 février 2007, définitif le 6 mai 2007 Finster, requête n o 24860/08, arrêt du 8 février 2011, définitif le 8 mai 2011)   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 11 septembre 2013, lors de la 1177e 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 qui ont été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans les affaires ci-dessus et les violations constatées   ;   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)94) ;   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 ces affaires et   DECIDE d’en clore l’examen. Action Report (anglais uniquement) Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the cases of Garycki v. Poland and Finster v. Poland   Case description Garycki, Application No. 14348/02, judgment of 06/02/2007, final on 06/05/2007 Finster, Application No. 24860/08, judgment of 08/02/2011, final on 08/05/2011   Both cases concern the violation of the presumption of innocence due to the domestic courts’ grounds for their decisions on the prolongation of the applicants’ detention (violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention) and the excessive length of detention on remand (violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention).   In the case of Garycki the Katowice Court of Appeal in its decision of 30 October 2001 and in the case of Finster the Gdańsk Court of Appeal in its decision of 19 March 2008 stated, before their guilt had been proved according to law, that the evidence against the applicants indicated that they had committed the offences with which they had been charged.   In its judgments, the European Court of Human Rights emphasised that there was a fundamental distinction to be made between a statement that someone was merely suspected of having committed a crime and a clear judicial declaration, in the absence of a final conviction, that the individual had committed the crime in question. The Court underlined that there could be no justification for a court of law to make a premature pronouncement of this kind.   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures                  Details of just satisfaction   Case Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Cost and expenses Total Finster - €2 000 - €2   000 Paid on 29/09/2011                  Individual measures   In the case of Garycki, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment in December   2002. The Court held that finding of violations constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage.   In the case of Finster detention on remand was lifted on 26 June 2008. The Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary.   II.   General measures                  Violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention   The violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention in the present cases was rather of an isolated nature and resulted from failure of specific national courts. Therefore, it seems that the publication and dissemination of the Court’s judgment would be appropriated in order to avoid similar violations in the future.   In this context it should be noted, that the Court’s judgments were translated into Polish and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.ms.gov.pl). The issues raised in the judgments were also included in the curricula of trainings for judges and prosecutors organised by the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution.   In these circumstances, no other general measure appears necessary.                  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).   III.   Conclusions of the responding State   The government considers that other individual measures are not necessary in the present cases 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 with respect to the breach of Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Convention.