Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)84
Mirosław Garlicki, Stokłosa and Pohoska against Poland
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
(Application No. 36921/07, judgment of 14/06/2011, final on 14/09/2011
Application No. 32602/08, judgment of 03/11/2011, final on 03/02/2012
Application No. 33530/06, judgment of 10/01/2012, final on 10/04/2012)
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 7 May 2013
at the 1170th 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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above cases and to the violations 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 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 judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)319E);
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 these cases and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
Action report[1]
Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in cases Mirosław Garlicki against Poland, Stokłosa and Pohoska against Poland
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.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy