CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 6 juin 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s25DB3F80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; 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 } .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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s7128353A { margin-left:31.34pt; text-align:left; padding-left:4.66pt; 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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)112 Wieczorek against Poland Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights   (Application No. 18176/05, judgment of 08/12/2009, final on 08/03/2010)   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 June 2013 at the 1172nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),   Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established;   Recalling the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it is a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)436 );   Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof. Action Report [1]   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in case Wieczorek against Poland     Case description Wieczorek, application No. 18176/05, judgment of 08/12/2009, final on 08/03/2010   This case concerns the Cracow Court of Appeal’s refusal in 2004 to grant the applicant legal aid to lodge a cassation appeal on the basis of the assumption that the crucial issue in the case concerned the assessment of the applicant`s condition and that the case did not warrant professional legal assistance for the purpose of further appeal.   In the opinion of the European Court, if legal representation was mandatory, the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that legal assistance would be unnecessary, in particular in the absence of any analysis of whether in the circumstances of the case the cassation appeal offered reasonable prospects of success, does not seem to be justified. The domestic court failed in its duty to give proper examination to the applicant`s request for legal assistance (violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention).     I.   Individual measures   The Court granted the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 2000 EUR - 2000 EUR Paid on 23/06/2010   Following the judgment of the European Court, the applicant has a right to make an application for lodging a cassation appeal out of time.   In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary.     II.   General measures   The case is similar to the case Tabor v. Poland , application No. 12825/02, in which the Committee has closed its supervision, see CM/ResDH(2011)239.   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 16 April 2013.