CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 7 mai 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 } .s8EE18E3A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.25pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s3AF0A5A1 { width:33.22pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sE6A17617 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sAE73F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:10pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC43FB860 { width:27.12pt; display:inline-block } .s779EB7AA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s9D9315CA { width:97.88%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s401DFD24 { width:24.96%; 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 } .sD1CC79A5 { width:29.42%; 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 } .s2B160FD0 { width:24.94%; 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 } .s3E6CF6F9 { width:20.68%; 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 } .s46BF35B5 { width:24.96%; 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 } .s7943A08D { width:29.42%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7DEE7D06 { width:24.94%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5F02589B { width:20.68%; 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 } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .s11861F90 { width:97.44%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s7D23E1FF { width:24.56%; 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 } .s7D6D4A81 { width:30.06%; 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 } .s57CC31BC { width:24.54%; 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 } .s30AB5BF2 { width:20.82%; 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 } .s1FD13810 { width:24.56%; 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 } .s4967E965 { width:30.06%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s35B3E0E9 { width:24.54%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s869B7982 { width:20.82%; 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 } .s464AF326 { width:24.34pt; 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)84 Mirosław Garlicki, Stokłosa et Pohoska contre Pologne Exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 36921/07, arrêt du 14/06/2011, définitif le 14/09/2011 Requête n o 32602/08, arrêt du 03/11/2011, définitif le 03/02/2012 Requête n o 33530/06, arrêt du 10/01/2012, définitif le 10/04/2012)   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 7 mai 2013, lors de la 1170e 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 les arrêts définitifs qui ont été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans les affaires 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)319E)   ;   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 ces affaires et   DECIDE d’en clore l’examen. Action report [1] Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in cases Mirosław Garlicki against Poland, Stokłosa and Pohoska against Poland (Anglais seulement)     Case description   Mirosław Garlicki, Application No. 36921/07, judgment of 14/06/2011, final on 14/09/2011 Stokłosa, Application No. 32602/08, judgment of 03/11/2011, final on 03/02/2012 Pohoska, Application No. 33530/06, judgment of 10/01/2012, final on 10/04/2012   The cases Mirosław Garlicki v. Poland and Stokłosa v. Poland concern the violation of the applicants’ right to liberty and security as the assessors (junior judges) who detained them on remand, did not offer the guarantees of independence required of an “officer” by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (violation of Article 5   §   3 of the Convention).   In the case Pohoska v. Poland the applicant’s right to an independent tribunal was violated due to the fact that the trial court, which ruled in August 2005 on a criminal charge against her, was composed of an assessor (violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention).   The European Court noted that the Polish Constitutional Court, already in its judgment of 24/10/2007, had considered that the possibility of conferring the exercise of judicial powers on assessors, provided for under Article 135 § 1 of the Law of 2001 on the Organisation of Courts ( ustawa Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych, “the 2001 Act”), fell short of constitutional requirements because assessors did not enjoy the necessary guarantees of independence, notably vis-à-vis the Minister of Justice.   The European Court considered that the assessor in the applicants’ cases lacked independence, as they could have been removed by the Minister of Justice at any time during their term of office and that there were therefore no adequate guarantees protecting them against the arbitrary exercise of that power by the Minister.   I.   Individual measures   Just satisfaction was granted by the Court to the applicants in cases Mirosław Garlicki v. Poland and Pohoska v. Poland.   Mirosław Garlicki v. Poland   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 6 000 EUR 2   000 EUR   Paid on 5 December 2011     Pohoska v. Poland   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 1   000 EUR EUR   Paid on 14 March 2012   The applicants in cases Mirosław Garlicki v. Poland and Stokłosa v. Poland are no longer detained on remand. The European Court indicated that in the Stokłosa case the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered.   Concerning the Pohoska case, domestic law provides for a possibility of reopening of criminal proceedings when such a need results, inter alia , from a judgment of the Court (Article 540 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Formal proceedings, for example related to the imposition of detention on remand, not terminated with a decision on merits, cannot be reopened.   In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary.   II.   General measures   These cases are similar to the case Henryk Urban and Ryszard Urban v. Poland, Application No.   23614/08, in which the Committee has closed its supervision, see: DH-DD(2011)683E, CM/ResDH(2012)197.   In these circumstances, no further general measure appears necessary.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent State   The government considers that no individual measures are necessary in the present case and that the general measures adopted, notably the legislative changes, 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 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention.   [1] Information submitted by the Polish authorities on 20 March 2013.