Resolution ResDH(2002)124
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 4 July 2000
in the case of Niedbała against Poland
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 21 October 2002
at the 810th 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, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Niedbała case delivered on 4 July 2000 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 27915/95) against Poland, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 5 February 1995 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Maciej Niedbała, a Polish national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaint concerning the right for the applicant to be heard by a judge or an other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial powers, after having been arrested, the conditions under which the courts examined the appeals lodged by the applicant to challenge his detention on remand, as well as the complaint concerning the interception, by the prison’s authorities, of a letter sent by the applicant to the Ombudsman of his country, and the delay in forwarding it;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission, on 3 June 1999;
Whereas in its judgment of 4 July 2000 the Court:
- held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention;
- held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention;
- held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
- held, unanimously, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months, 2 000 Polish zlotys in respect of non-pecuniary damage; 10 800 Polish Zlotys in respect of costs and expenses together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable, less 9 989 French francs already paid by way of legal aid, to be converted into Polish zlotys at the exchange rate applicable at the date of delivery of the judgment, and that simple interest at an annual rate of 21% would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
- dismissed, by six votes to one, the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 4 July 2000, having regard to Poland’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that the legislation has been modified after the facts of the present case (see paragraph 19 page 4, as well as paragraphs 22, 23 page 5 and paragraphs 35, 36 pages 7 and 8 of the Court’s judgment) and that new similar violations of the Convention could be avoided for the future; it also indicated that the authorities concerned were informed of the requirements of the Convention - copies of the judgment translated into Polish had accordingly been sent out to the Ministry of Justice which has disseminated them to the courts – and that the Court’s judgment had been published in the Bulletin du Centre d’Information du Conseil de l’Europe;
Having satisfied itself that on 27 September 2000, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 4 July 2000,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Poland, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy