CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 26 septembre 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA3C2123C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sEFED8740 { width:97.7%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sA34329EC { 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 } .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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .sAE73F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:10pt } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s114AEA21 { font-size:9pt } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)191 Laskowska contre Pologne   Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n° 77765/01, arrêt du 13/03/2007, définitif le 13/06/2007)   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 26 septembre 2013, lors de la 1179e 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 l’arrêt définitif qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée   ;   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 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(2013)868 ) [1]   ;   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   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case Laskowska against Poland (anglais uniquement)   Case description Laskowska, application No. 77765/01, judgment of 13/03/2007, final on 13/06/2007   The case concerns the lack of effective access to the Supreme Court on account of the Regional Court’s flawed interpretation of domestic law (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention).   The applicant requested legal aid in order to lodge a cassation appeal against the Katowice Regional Court’s judgment of 02/02/2000 in proceedings concerning her entitlement to financial maintenance, following her divorce. However, due to lack of clarity on the possibility to appeal decision in this type of proceedings the Regional Court incorrectly instructed her that a cassation appeal was not provided for in her case and dismissed her application for legal aid. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal herself, but in September 2000 the Regional Court rejected it inter alia because of compulsory legal representation requirement in such proceedings. Following the applicant’s appeal against this decision, in January 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed it on formal grounds, indicating, however, that contrary to the view of the Regional Court, a cassation appeal was allowed in this case, as it concerned the issue of entitlement to maintenance and not the issue of the amount of maintenance, which was excluded from the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.   The European Court found that the applicant had been deprived of effective access to the Supreme Court on account of the Regional Court’s flawed interpretation of domestic law, the latter having refused her legal assistance on the basis that a cassation appeal had not been available in her case. Since the Regional Court had not examined the merits of the applicant’s request for legal aid, she could not, therefore, be blamed for not having appointed a counsel to represent her.   I.   Individual measures   The European Court awarded the applicant with just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Following the European Court’s judgment the applicant had the possibility to re-apply for legal-aid and for leave to lodge a cassation appeal out of time. However, she did not undertake any further steps and the judgment in the domestic proceedings became final.   1.   Payment of just satisfaction.   Laskowska v. Poland, Case No. 77765/01 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 2 000 EUR 1 150 EUR 3 150 EUR Paid on 18/07/2007   In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary.   II.   General measures   The violation resulted from the Katowice Regional Court’s erroneous assumption that a cassation appeal was not available in the applicant’s case in the light of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in force in material time. However, since the facts of the case, with a view to clarifying the procedure the provisions of the Code concerning the procedure for lodging a cassation appeal have been amended.   Previously, article 393 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in the version applicable until 30 June 2000), provided that no cassation appeal could be lodged in cases relating to the amount of financial maintenance awarded. Following the amendments to the Code, as from 1 July 2000 no cassation appeal may be lodged with the Supreme Court in any cases relating to amounts of maintenance (a rule contained in article 3921§2(1) and from 6 February 2005 – in article 3982§2(1)). Accordingly, there is no longer the possibility for misinterpretation of the provision on the access to the Supreme Court in cases similar to that of the applicant.   The European Court’s judgment in Laskowska case was translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice, it was also sent to the presidents of the courts of appeal with a request for its further dissemination among judges. The judgment of the European Court was also included into the curricula of trainings for judges and prosecutors.   In these circumstances, no other general measure appears necessary.   III.   Conclusions of the responding State   The government considers that further individual measures are not necessary in the present case and that the general measures adopted, in particular legislative changes, 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 6 § 1 of the Convention.   [1] Anglais uniquement.