Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)198[1]
Nowinski against Poland
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
(Application No. 25924/06, judgment of 20 October 2009, final on 20 January 2010)
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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2011)685E);
Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a 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 judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2011)685E);
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 this case and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
ACTION REPORT[2]
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Nowiński against Poland
Case description
Nowiński, application no. 25924/06, judgment of 20/10/2009, final on 20/01/2010
The case concerns a violation of the applicant's right of access to a court in that his claim for compensation against the Wroclaw Court of Appeal was declared inadmissible on the sole ground that the applicant had not provided his home address (violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention).
The applicant provided the Wroclaw Regional Court with his work address and post-office box address for correspondence. However, the court considered that in spite of that information he had not indicated his “place of residence” within the meaning of Article 126 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, on 16/05/2005 the Regional Court refused his claim.
The European Court of Human Rights found that the applicant, who was the plaintiff in the case, was in permanent contact with the domestic courts and it was in his best interest to ensure the proper course of the proceedings. He had therefore provided a fixed address through which he could be contacted. The Court recalled that the right of access to a court is not absolute. It may be subject to limitations, provided those limitations pursue a legitimate aim and are proportionate. The Court accepted that “a requirement to indicate a place of residence served a legitimate aim [...] However, it considered that the strict application [of the rule] in the applicant's case” was disproportionate (see §34 of the Court’s judgment). The Court concluded that as “the Government failed to submit any arguments making it possible to assess the need for the limitations imposed on the applicant, the Court cannot but conclude that the requirements of Article 6 § 1 were not complied with” (§35 of the Court’s judgment).
I. Just satisfaction and individual measures
1.Just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Cost and expenses
Amount
-
1,000 EUR
-
1,000 EUR
Paid on 15/04/2010
2. Individual measures
The amount awarded by the Court (1,000 EUR, approximately 4,000 PLN) exceed the amount claimed by the applicant in domestic proceedings (i.e., 3,000 PLN, see § 11 of the Court’s judgment).
In these circumstances, no further individual measure appears necessary.
II. General measures
Violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the present case was rather of incidental nature and resulted from excessive formalism of national courts. Therefore, it seems that in order to avoid similar violations in the future publication and dissemination of the Court’s judgment would be appropriated.
In this context it should be noted that the Court’s judgment was translated into Polish and published on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice (). The judgment has been sent to all courts of appeal and the General Prosecutor’s Office with request to disseminate it among judges and prosecutors. It has been 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, and to the Supreme Court.
In these circumstances, no further general measure appears necessary.
III. Conclusions of the respondent state
The Government considers that further 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 in respect to the breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
[2] Information submitted by the Polish authorities on 1 August 2011.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy