CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 mai 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 18 May 2000 Kurzac v. Poland (dec.) - 31382/96 Decision 25.5.2000 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Proceedings to have deceased’s brother’s conviction annulled: Article 6 applicable The applicant’s brother was convicted in 1948 in connection with his membership of a resistance group which from 1943 had directed its activities against the Soviets rather than the Nazis. He was sentenced to imprisonment. He was shot by a militia officer in 1956. In 1993 the applicant lodged an application to have the conviction annulled, pursuant to a 1991 law. His lawyer asked for an early hearing in view of the applicant’s age and poor health, and he repeated this request a year later. He was informed that an early hearing was excluded since 10,000 similar cases were pending. The conviction was finally annulled in May 1998. Admissible under Article 6 § 1: In general, such proceedings have features similar to an appeal against conviction and for the victim the effect is to redetermine the criminal charge. However, this is not the case for someone who seeks to have a relative’s conviction annulled. The law entitles such a person to seek a review on behalf of a deceased victim, and thus not only acknowledges the State’s responsibility but also the right to obtain a retrospective acquittal. Certain relatives have a right to compensation and in such cases the proceedings are decisive for a pecuniary right;   other relatives, such as the applicant, do not have a right to compensation, but this does not remove the proceedings from the scope of Article 6 under its civil head. The proceedings had the aim of restoring the honour and reputation of the applicant’s family, and thus concerned his right to enjoy a good reputation and his right to protect the honour of his family and restore its good name. Article 6 is therefore applicable: admissible.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes