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 } .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 } .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 } .s32DA3E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:4pt } .s2B8F0DE5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:4pt; text-align:justify } .sE693426F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:4pt; text-align:justify } .s522982D6 { width:30.99pt; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sD8A790ED { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:53.45pt; margin-bottom:4pt; text-align:justify } .sA6C90495 { width:28.22pt; display:inline-block } .s8AC09A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .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 } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)39 [1] Wojtas-Kaleta contre Pologne Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 20436/02, arrêt du 16/07/2009, définitif le 16/10/2009)     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 le arrêt définitif qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l`affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée (voir document DH-DD(2013)119E );   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 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)119E );   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 Wojtas-Kaleta against Poland     Case description Wojtas-Kaleta, application no. 20436/02, judgment of 16/07/2009, final on 16/10/2009. The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression in that she was reprimanded by her employer, the Polish Public Television (TVP), for failing to observe the company’s general regulation no. 14 § 2, which required her to protect her employer’s good name. The European Court found the reprimand not “necessary in a democratic society” (violation of Article 10 of the Convention). In 1999 the applicant was reprimanded for having expressed, in an interview, her concerns about lack of support for classical music by the TVP and about the fact that the quality of public television programmes was being negatively affected as a result of fierce competition from private broadcasters. She also signed an open letter addressed to the board of TVP on the same subject. She was reprimanded for failing to respect the company’s regulations, under which she was obliged to respect her employer’s good name and the reprimand was to be kept on her record for up to a year, depending on her behaviour. The applicant lodged a claim against TVP to have the reprimand withdrawn, but to no avail as the courts found her to have breached her obligation of loyalty to her employer. The European Court of Human Rights drew attention to the fact that the role played by journalists in society and their responsibility to contribute to and encourage public debate limits their obligation of discretion, given that it is in the nature of their functions to impart information and ideas. The Court further reiterated that there is a little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on debate on questions of public interest.   I.   Individual measures The reprimand was imposed in 1999 and, in accordance with Article 113 § 1 of the Labour Code, was to be kept on the applicant’s record for up to a year, depending on her behaviour. According to the information obtained by the Government the reprimand was removed from the applicant’s employee’s files. The applicant did not submit a claim for damages or for the reimbursement of legal costs.   In these circumstances, no further measure appears necessary.   II.   General measures Violation of Article 10 of the Convention in the present case was rather of incidental nature and resulted from the practice of the public television broadcaster and argumentation of domestic courts. Therefore, it seems that in order to avoid similar violations in the future publication and dissemination of the Court’s judgment would be appropriated. In this context it should be noted that the Court’s judgment was translated into Polish and published on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice ( www.ms.gov.pl ). The judgment has been sent to all courts of appeal and the General Prosecutor’s Office with request to disseminate it among judges and prosecutors. It has been also sent to the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution, with request to include it in the training program addressed to judges and prosecutors, and to the Supreme Court. In these circumstances, no further measure appears necessary.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state The Government considers that further 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 in respect to the breach of Article 10 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 6 February 2013. Available only in English.