CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 6 décembre 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s5EE9E87A { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sBFC49883 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)200 [1] Frankowicz contre Pologne Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 53025/99, arrêt du 16 décembre 2008, définitif le 4 mai 2009)     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 qu’il 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 (voir document DH-DD(2011)411E )   ;   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 aux obligations susmentionnées   ;   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(2011)411E )   ;   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 [2] Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Frankowicz against Poland [3]   Case description   Frankowicz, application no. 53025/99, judgment of 16/12/2008, final on 04/05/2009 This case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression due to his conviction in disciplinary proceedings, a decision subsequently upheld by the Supreme Medical Court in May 1998 (violation of Article 10 of the Convention).   The applicant is a gynaecologist. He was found guilty of unethical conduct in breach of the principle of professional solidarity, in violation of the Code of Ethics, and reprimanded for having prepared a critical opinion on hepatological and dermatological treatment prescribed by another doctor for one of his patients.   The European Court of Human Rights (“the European Court”) found that this sanction, although provided by law and pursuing a legitimate aim, i.e., the protection of the rights and reputation of others, was not «necessary in a democratic society». It stressed that the applicant’s opinion concerned a critical assessment from a medical point of view of treatment received by his patient from another doctor, which was an issue of public interest. The disciplinary courts’ approach risked discouraging medical practitioners from providing their patients with an objective view of their state of health and treatment received.     I.   Individual measures   The notice of reprimand, imposed in 1998, was removed from the relevant register three years after the decision to impose it became final. The Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and rejected his claim for pecuniary damage due to the lack of a causal link between the damage claimed and the violation found. In these circumstances, no further individual measure appears to be necessary.     II.   General measures   1.   Legislative measures   The applicant has been convinced on the basis of Article 52 § 2 of the Code of Medical Ethics as it stood at the material time.   On 20 September 2003 Article 52 § 2 was amended and currently reads as follows: “A physician should display particular caution in formulating opinions on the professional conduct of another doctor and in particular he should not in any way discredit him publicly.”   On 23 April 2008 the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment (SK16/07) in which it found that Article 52 § 2 of the Code of Medical Ethics was unconstitutional in so far as it prohibited the truthful public assessment of the activity of a doctor by another doctor in the public interest. The relevant provision, examined in its new wording which came into force in 2003, was not quashed as only its particular interpretation was considered to breach the constitutional norm securing the freedom of expression (§ 25 of the judgment).   Taking into consideration the amendment of Article 52 § 2 of the Code of Medical Ethics and the judgment of the Constitutional Court, indicating its correct interpretation, no further legislative measures appear to be necessary.     2.   Publication and dissemination   The judgment of the European Court was translated into Polish and published on the internet site of the Ministry of Justice (www.ms.gov.pl). Information about the publication has been sent to all Courts of Appeals with request to disseminate it among judges. In addition Ministry of Health has sent the translated judgment to the President of the Supreme Medical Chamber and presidents of all regional medical chambers with request to disseminate it among the members of the medical self-government.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted, in particular legislative changes and broad dissemination of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, will prevent similar violations and that Poland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention. [1] Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 décembre 2012 lors de la 1157e réunion des Délégués des Ministres. [2] Information submitted by the Polish authorities on 27 May 2011. [3] En anglais uniquement.