Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)38[1]
Witek contre Pologne
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
(Requête no 13453/07, arrêt du 21 décembre 2010, définitif le 11 avril 2011)
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 qu’il 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 les violations constatées (voir document DH-DD(2011)1044E) ;
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 aux obligations susmentionnées ;
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(2011)1044E) ;
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[2]
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Witek against Poland
Case description
Witek, application no. 13453/07, judgment of 21/12/2010, final on 11/04/2011
The case concerns the applicant’s unlawful detention in a psychiatric hospital from 19/06/2006 to 11/01/2007 (violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention).
The applicant was placed in a psychiatric hospital on 19/06/2006 on the basis of expert evidence obtained in 1999 and 2000. It was only on 7/09/2006 that the Kielce District Court ordered that the applicant be examined by expert psychiatrists. The expert evidence confirming the need to continue the applicant’s detention was submitted to the District Court only on 7/11/2006 and examined at a hearing held on 11/01/2007. The European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) found that in the circumstances of the present case the District Court had not ordered an expert opinion promptly enough (only three months after the applicant’s placement in the hospital).
The case also concerns the delay in the proceedings by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of her detention in the psychiatric hospital (violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention). The Court observed that both the applicant’s and her lawyer’s appeals against the decision of 11/01/2007, lodged on 15 January and 24 January 2007 respectively, were examined together on 23/02/2007. The Court found that in the circumstances of the present case the delay of thirty days could not be considered compatible with the requirement of “speediness” laid down in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
-
6 000 EUR
-
6 000 EUR
Paid on 01/06/2011
Individual measures
The applicant was released from the psychiatric hospital on 16/11/2007. The Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary.
General measures
The violations of Article 5 § 1 and Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in the present case were rather of an isolated nature and resulted from failure of a national court. Therefore, it seems that publication and dissemination of the Court’s judgment would be appropriated in order to avoid similar violations in the future.
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 (). The judgment will be sent to all courts of appeal and the General Prosecutor’s Office with request to disseminate it among judges and prosecutors. It will be also sent to the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution with request to include it in the training program addressed to judges and prosecutors.
In these circumstances, no other general measure appears necessary.
III.Conclusions of the responding state
The Government considers that other 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.
[1] Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 7 mars 2013 lors de la 1164e réunion des Délégués des Ministres.
[2] Information submitted by the Polish authorities on 14 October 2011. Available only in English.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy