CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 8 mars 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA427913 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s8D9AE249 { margin-left:14.75pt; 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 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB286AABC { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s50E5EE9 { margin-left:0.5pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s4A06B0A7 { height:18.25pt } .s7BD42178 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:middle } .s99B8C241 { 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; vertical-align:middle } .sE00AD83E { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:middle } .s460A4CD6 { height:18pt } .sD058022A { 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; vertical-align:middle } .sCB05FEC7 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:middle } .s79873DCD { 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; vertical-align:middle } .sA640467F { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:middle } .sAE73F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:10pt } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sB16587F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)43 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Bruczyński against Poland     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”) [2] ,   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it became final;   Case name (App. No.) Judgment of Final on Bruczyński (19206/03) 04/11/2008 04/02/2009   Recalling that a finding of a violation by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgment, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of individual measures to put an end to the violations and as far as possible to remedy their consequences for the applicant and general measures to prevent new, similar violations;   Having invited the authorities of the respondent State to provide an action plan concerning the measures proposed to execute the judgment;   Having, in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, examined the action report provided by the government (see action report, document DH-DD(2011)1011E );   Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;     DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof.   ACTION REPORT [3] Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Bruczyński against Poland   Case description Bruczyński, application no. 19206/03, judgment of 4/11/2008, final on 4/02/2009   This case concerns the excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand between 2000 and 2004, given that the grounds relied upon by the domestic courts in support of the detention could not be deemed, as required by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, “relevant and sufficient” (violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention).   Moreover, the Court found that the applicant did not have at his disposal an enforceable right to compensation for his detention on remand, which it had found to be in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention).   The Court noted, first, that the applicant could not avail himself of the remedy provided in Article 552 §   4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since reliance on that provision presupposes that the criminal proceedings giving rise to remand have been terminated and the applicant’s case was still pending before the Supreme Court when it delivered its judgment. Secondly, the applicant could not use the relevant provisions of the Civil Code on the State’s liability for tort, as the applicant’s detention ended before the entry into force of these provisions in September 2004.   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   1.   Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 1,500 EUR 1,650 EUR 3,150 EUR Paid on 09/03/2009   2.   Individual measures   The applicant was released in 2004. The Court awarded him just satisfaction in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage occasioned by the unreasonable length of his pre-trial detention. In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary.   II.   General measures   1.   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).   2.   Violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention   The Court noted that on 1/09/2004 the Law of 17 June 2004 on amendments to the Civil Code and other statutes ( Ustawa o zmianie ustawy – Kodeks cywilny oraz niektórych innych ustaw ) entered into force. The relevant amendments have in essence been aimed at enlarging the scope of the State Treasury’s liability for tort. Following the 2004 Amendment, Article 4171 was introduced which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:   “3. If damage has been caused by failure to give a ruling [orzeczenie] or decision [decyzja] where there is a statutory duty to do so, reparation for [the damage] may be sought after it has been established in the relevant proceedings that the failure to give a ruling or decision was contrary to the law, unless other specific provisions provide otherwise.”   The Court observed that this provision provided a possibility to claim compensation in relation to detention on remand which had occurred after 1/09/2004 (see, in particular, §§ 67, 68 of the Court’s judgment in the present case and § 54 of the Court’s judgment of 30/01/2007 in the Ryckie case, no. 19583/05).   It should be further noted, that the Court’s judgment was translated into Polish and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.ms.gov.pl). It was also sent to all courts of appeal with request to disseminate it among judges and to the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution with request to include it in the training program addressed to judges and prosecutors.   In these circumstances, no other general measure appears necessary.   III. Conclusions of the responding state   The Government considers that other individual measures are not necessary in the present case and that the general measures adopted, in particular legislative changes and 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 5, paragraph 5 of the Convention.   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies. [2] See also the Recommendations adopted by the Committee of Ministers in the context of the supervision of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and in particular Recommendation Rec(2004)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the improvement of domestic remedies. [3] Information submitted by the Polish authorities on 14 October 2011