CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 7 mars 2013

.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 } .s76024555 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-35.4pt } .s91649648 { width:32.07pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .s54FD311 { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s66053943 { text-transform:uppercase } .s32DA3E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:4pt } .s2B8F0DE5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:4pt; text-align:justify } .s4BE1BC65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:4pt; text-align:justify; vertical-align:top } .sE693426F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:4pt; text-align:justify } .s522982D6 { width:30.99pt; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s157B63D5 { margin-left:31.19pt; margin-bottom:4pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:4.51pt; font-weight:bold } .s30164143 { width:97.68%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sD5162D24 { width:25%; 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 } .sDA744FB0 { margin-top:3pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sCFBE9957 { width:25%; 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 } .s33F8F4DB { margin-top:3pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:right; font-size:10pt } .sB7FB37ED { margin-left:31.34pt; margin-bottom:4pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:4.66pt; font-weight:bold } .sA6C90495 { width:28.22pt; display:inline-block } .sAC1E8E07 { width:25.44pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s116BEA21 { font-size:8pt } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)37 [1] Jakobski contre Pologne Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 18429/06, arrêt du 7 décembre 2010, définitif le 7 mars 2010)     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)1043E )   ;   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)1043E )   ;   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 Jakóbski against Poland     Case description Jakóbski, application no. 18429/06, judgment of 7/12/2010, final on 7/03/2011 This case concerns the authorities’ refusal to provide a detainee with a meat-free diet in prison, contrary to the dietary rules of his faith (violation of Article 9). The European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) observed that the applicant’s religion, Buddhism, was one of the world’s major religions officially recognised in numerous countries. In addition, it had already held that observing dietary rules can be considered a direct expression of beliefs in practice in the sense of Article 9 of the Convention. The Court noted that according to the applicant’s religion he was supposed to have a simple meat-free diet. He asked to be granted a vegetarian diet, excluding meat products, which, in view of the Court, did not have to be prepared, cooked and served in a prescribed manner, nor did he require to any special products. The applicant was not offered any alternative diet, nor was the Buddhist Mission consulted on the issue of the appropriate diet. The Court was not persuaded that the provision of a vegetarian diet to the applicant would have entailed any disruption to the management of the prison or to any decline in the standards of meals served to other prisoners.   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures Details of just satisfaction Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Cost and expenses Total - 3,000 EUR 187 EUR 3,187 EUR Paid on 24/05/2011   Individual measures The applicant was released on 20/06/2011. The Court awarded him just-satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears to be necessary.   II.   General measures The rights and obligations of prisoners and persons detained on remand is governed by the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences of 6 June 1997 (“the 1997 Code”). Under Article 106 of the 1997 Code, a prisoner shall have the right, among other things, to perform religious practices and to take advantage of religious rites and participate in religious services, conducted in prison, to possess the necessary books, writings and objects. Article 109 of the 1997 Code provides that a prisoner shall receive meals taking into consideration, where possible, religious and cultural requirements. According to statistical information, by the end of August 2011, 927 prisoners and persons detained on remand were enjoying a diet taking into consideration their religious and cultural beliefs and 957 were granted a vegetarian diet. The current legal provisions provide the detainees with a possibility to apply to the competent authorities for a diet taking into consideration their religious beliefs. Under Article 6 § 2 of the 1997 Code a convicted person may submit motions, complaints and petitions to the authorities carrying out the criminal decision. Furthermore, under Article 7 § 1 of the 1997 Code a convicted person may appeal to the court against the decisions of the directors of the penitentiary establishments, regional directors of the Prison Service and the Director General of the Prison Service. Notwithstanding the above-mentioned provisions, penitentiary judges are entitled, under Articles 32-36 of the 1997 Code, to examine complaints, applications and motions of the detainees. The existing legal provision regulating the issue of religious diet for prisoners and persons detained on remand, as well as recent statistical data, indicating the positive practice of the Polish penitentiary establishments, prove that the violation of Article 9 of the Convention was rather of an isolated nature and resulted from specific circumstances of the present case. Therefore, it seems that 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 judgment was translated into Polish and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.ms.gov.pl). The information about its publication was sent to the Central Board of Prison Service and regional directors of the Prison Service with request to disseminate it among directors of prison establishments. In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears to be necessary.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state The Government considers that other individual measures are not necessary in the present case 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.   [1] Adoptée par le Comité des   Ministres le 7 mars 2013 lors de la 1164e réunion des Délégués des Ministres. [2] Information submitted by the Polish authorities on 19 October 2011. Available only in English.