CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 4 mars 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .sE0F4C20 { width:98.74%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s60A6A6A4 { width:18.62%; 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sC1930E8A { width:11.68%; 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 } .sCA291703 { width:26.34%; 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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s83B54333 { width:23.32%; 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 } .s896B5DD6 { width:20.04%; 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 } .sF9DDB7BD { width:18.62%; 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 } .sD834EB72 { width:11.68%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2CC947EB { width:26.34%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE07493FA { width:23.32%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5AA21BC6 { width:20.04%; 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 } .sB30C44B0 { 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 } .sB1F92847 { width:25.02pt; display:inline-block } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s69A51D48 { width:20.04%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; 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 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)19 [1] Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Bogulak and 3 other cases against Poland   (See details in Appendix)     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 judgments, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern breaches of the right to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power following arrest (violations of Article 5§3), as well as, in the cases of Bogulak and M.B., the non-adversarial nature of the proceedings aiming at the control of the lawfulness of the applicants’ detention on remand (violations of Article 5§4) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:   - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures, preventing similar violations;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)19   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Bogulak and three other cases against Poland     Introductory case summary   These cases concern the violation of the right to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power following arrest, in that the applicants had been detained solely on the basis of prosecutor’s decisions, delivered between 1994 and 1996 (violations of Article 5§3).   The cases Bogulak and M.B. also concern the impossibility for the applicants to take part in or to be represented at the hearings concerning the lawfulness of their detention on remand during this period (violations of Article 5§4).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Name and application number Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total Bogulak 33866/96 - 1   000 EUR - 1   000 EUR   Paid on 23/11/2006 M.B., 34091/96   - 2   500 EUR - 2   500 EUR   Paid on 28/10/2004 (delay of one day) Jasiński, 30865/96 - - 1   340 EUR 1   340 EUR   Paid on 05/05/2006 W.B., 34090/96 - - 1   231 EUR 1   231 EUR   Paid on 25/07/2006 (15 days’ delay)   b) Individual measures   At the time the European Court delivered its judgments, the applicants were no longer held on remand. Moreover, in the cases of Jasiński and W.B., the European Court found that the finding of violations constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.   II.   General measures   The cases present similarities to that of Niedbała (Resolution ResDH(2002)124), which was closed following the entry into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure on 01/09/1998 : the law on remand in custody and proceedings regarding the examination of its lawfulness have been brought into accordance with the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent new, similar violations and that Poland has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.