CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 3 mars 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   103 3.3.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment concerning Poland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following Chamber judgment, which is not final. [1]   Brudnicka and Others v. Poland (application no 54723/00) Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicants are Irena Brudnicka and ten other Polish nationals, all parents and widows of sailors who died in the shipwreck of the Jan Heweliusz . On 14 January 1993 the Jan Heweliusz , which was owned by the Polskie Linie Oceaniczne company and operated by the Euroafrica company, sank in the Baltic Sea, causing the death of 55 people.   Legal proceedings were brought in order to determine the causes of the catastrophe and on 11   January 1994 the Maritime Disputes Chamber of Szczecin Regional Court ( Izba Morska przy Sądzie Wojewódzkim) found the ship’s captain, its technical team, the Polish Shipping Registry, which had inspected the vessel before the accident, and the rescue services all liable for the disaster. The judgment was overturned on appeal.   The case was remitted to the Maritime Disputes Chamber of Gdansk Regional Court, which found that the accident had been caused by negligence on the part of members of the ship’s crew, a failure by the ship’s owner to carry out necessary repairs and natural causes. That decision was overturned by the Maritime Disputes Appeals Chamber of Gdansk Regional Court on 26 January 1999, which partly absolved the ship operator of liability for the accident, holding that the ship’s crew were liable as they had breached their duty of care by failing to coordinate their operations.   The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair hearing) that, among other things, their case had not been heard by an impartial and independent court.   The Court noted that the decisions delivered by the maritime disputes chambers were final and not amenable to any form of judicial review. Since their presidents and vice presidents were appointed and removed from office by the Minister of Justice with the agreement of the Minister for Maritime Affairs, they could not be considered irremovable and the relationship between them and the ministers was one of hierarchical subordination. The Court accordingly found that a maritime disputes chamber as constituted under Polish law could not be regarded as an impartial court capable of ensuring compliance with the principles of fairness set out in Article 6 of the Convention, and that, accordingly, the applicants could have had objectively founded concerns about its independence and impartiality.   The Court noted that Poland had recently amended its legislation on maritime disputes chambers. However, the new legislation did not provide a right of appeal on points of law against a decision given by a maritime disputes appeal chamber, or alter the procedure for appointing or removing from office the president and vice president of maritime disputes chambers.   Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. In the light of that conclusion, it held that no separate examination of the other complaints of procedural unfairness was necessary.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court decided unanimously to award each of the 11 applicants EUR 4,600 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)       ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.