CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s706500A1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA0611542 { color:#000000 } .sBFC49883 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .sC3C3BCB8 { width:27.07pt; display:inline-block } .sE23107D { width:24.29pt; display:inline-block } Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)163 Two cases against Poland Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights   (Garycki, Application No. 14348/02, judgment of 6 February 2007, final on 6 May 2007 Finster, Application No. 24860/08, judgment of 8 February 2011, final on 8 May 2011)   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013 at the 1177th 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 the 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)94 );   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. A ction report   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.