Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)39[1]
Wojtas-Kaleta against Poland
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
(Application No. 20436/02, judgment of 16/07/2009, final on 16/10/2009)
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(2013)119E);
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(2013)119E);
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
Wojtas-Kaleta against Poland
Case description
Wojtas-Kaleta, application no. 20436/02, judgment of 16/07/2009, final on 16/10/2009.
The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression in that she was reprimanded by her employer, the Polish Public Television (TVP), for failing to observe the company’s general regulation no. 14 § 2, which required her to protect her employer’s good name. The European Court found the reprimand not “necessary in a democratic society” (violation of Article 10 of the Convention).
In 1999 the applicant was reprimanded for having expressed, in an interview, her concerns about lack of support for classical music by the TVP and about the fact that the quality of public television programmes was being negatively affected as a result of fierce competition from private broadcasters. She also signed an open letter addressed to the board of TVP on the same subject. She was reprimanded for failing to respect the company’s regulations, under which she was obliged to respect her employer’s good name and the reprimand was to be kept on her record for up to a year, depending on her behaviour. The applicant lodged a claim against TVP to have the reprimand withdrawn, but to no avail as the courts found her to have breached her obligation of loyalty to her employer.
The European Court of Human Rights drew attention to the fact that the role played by journalists in society and their responsibility to contribute to and encourage public debate limits their obligation of discretion, given that it is in the nature of their functions to impart information and ideas. The Court further reiterated that there is a little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on debate on questions of public interest.
I.Individual measures
The reprimand was imposed in 1999 and, in accordance with Article 113 § 1 of the Labour Code, was to be kept on the applicant’s record for up to a year, depending on her behaviour.
According to the information obtained by the Government the reprimand was removed from the applicant’s employee’s files.
The applicant did not submit a claim for damages or for the reimbursement of legal costs.
In these circumstances, no further measure appears necessary.
II.General measures
Violation of Article 10 of the Convention in the present case was rather of incidental nature and resulted from the practice of the public television broadcaster and argumentation of domestic 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 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 10 of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 7 March 2013 at the 1164th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
[2] Information submitted by the Polish authorities on 6 February 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy