CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 30 avril 2013

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s145A6E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sDC725B32 { width:4.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s67F06EFC { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#000000 } .s42BBCF49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s8DE33171 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sE6A17617 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s569AF9F2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s46EE67B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt; vertical-align:top } .sCE3793F { font-family:Arial; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sB0867025 { margin-left:13.34pt; text-align:left; padding-left:22.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; 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 } .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 } .sAE73F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:10pt } .s8A4FD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s779EB7AA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sE0D067DC { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; vertical-align:top } .sCD71F23D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff } .s45AE5F73 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)65 Giszczak contre Pologne Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 40195/08, arrêt du 29/11/2011, définitif le 29/02/2012)   (adoptée par le Comité de Ministres le 30 avril 2013, lors de la 1169e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)     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 que le Comité 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 les violations constatées   ;   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 à l’obligation susmentionnée   ;   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)54E )   ;   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.   A ction report [1] Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Giszczak against Poland (anglais seulement)   Case description   Giszczak, Application No. 40195/08, judgment of 29/11/2011, final on 29/02/2012   This case concerns the refusals of the applicant’s requests for compassionate leave to visit his dying daughter in hospital and the failure to provide a timely and adequate reply to the applicant’s request for leave to attend her funeral. Because of those two reasons the Court found violation of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention.   The applicant made an application for compassionate leave to visit his dying daughter in the hospital. However the Penitentiary Judge of the Gliwice Regional Court refused the leave request because of the poor prospects of the applicant’s rehabilitation. On 16 May 2008, the applicant’s daughter died. Upon the applicant’s request on 19 May 2008, the Penitentiary Judge of the Gliwice Regional Court allowed the applicant to attend his daughter’s funeral on 21   May   2008, under police escort.   On 20 May 2008 the Director of the Detention Centre informed the applicant orally about the permission. The applicant asked to be able to wear a suit and handcuffs. He also requested that the escorting officers should wear plain clothes. He submitted that his request was denied and therefore he decided not to attend the funeral.   The written decision was served on the applicant on 26 May 2008, after the funeral had already taken place. The decision only specified that the applicant was allowed to attend his daughter’s funeral under escort. It   did not mention whether he would have to wear joined shackles or whether he could wear plain clothes.   The Court concluded that, in the particular circumstances of the present case, the refusal of leave to visit the applicant’s dying daughter in the hospital, was not “necessary in a democratic society” as it did not correspond to a pressing social need and was not proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. Therefore the Court found the violation of Article 8 of the Convention.   The Court pointed out that before the funeral the applicant had only been orally informed about the decision by the Director of the Detention Centre. Although the applicant was at all times very concerned about creating a disturbance during the ceremony if he appeared in prison clothes and chains, he was not given clear information as regards the particular conditions of his attendance at the funeral.   The Court observed that the fact that the applicant had not been informed in time, and in a clear and unequivocal manner about the conditions of his compassionate leave to attend his daughter’s funeral eventually resulted in his refusal to attend it for fear of causing too much disturbance.   The Court concluded that, in the particular circumstances of the present case, the failure to provide timely and adequate reply to the applicant’s request to attend the funeral of his daughter under special conditions must be seen as incompatible with his rights under Article 8 of the Convention.   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 2 000 EUR - 2 000 EUR Paid on 18/04/2012   Individual measures   The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary.   II.   General measures   Violation of Article 8 of the Convention   The violation found by the Court in the present case resulted from the authorities’ failure to protect the applicant’s private life.   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) and sent out to competent authorities such as Central Board of Penitentiary Service. Subsequently, the Central Board of Penitentiary Service placed Polish translation of the judgment on its intranet website and sent to all Regional Heads of Penitentiary Service a circular with request to disseminate it among staff of all penitentiary units in Poland in order to act in conformity with the Court’s judgment.   In addition, in 2011, a special publication has been prepared which contains the analysis of the Court’s case law in leading cases concerning Poland – “Human rights standards under the European Convention on Human Rights” ( Standardy ochrony praw człowieka w prawie Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka ). The publication also contains the analysis of the standards related to Article 8 of the Convention. It has been disseminated free of charge among all judges and prosecutors. Moreover a new publication “European Court’s of Human Rights standards on granting of compassionate leaves to the persons deprived of their liberty” was placed on the Ministry of Justice’s website.   Finally it should be mentioned that on 1 January 2012 the law on compassionate leave was changed. Currently in force, Art. 141a § 1 of the Executive Criminal Code provides for clearly a possibility of granting a prisoner a leave under escort of the officer of the Prison Service, trustworthy person or he/she can leave penitentiary unit alone in order to visit sick family member or attend a funeral. Moreover new provisions provide for a possibility of lodging a complaint on the decision of the head of penitentiary unit.   In these circumstances, no other general 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 8 paragraph 1 of the Convention.   [1] Information submitted by the Polish authorities on 16 January 2013.