CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 23 juin 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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s535AA87B { width:10.74pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s7319C020 { width:148.82pt; display:inline-block } .s1C95484D { width:172.18pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   348 23.6.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Poland and Romania   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   Łatasiewicz v. Poland (application no. 44722/98)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 The applicant, Wiesław Łatasiewicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Kielce (Poland). He owned and ran a company.   On 10 March 1997 the applicant was detained on remand at Kielce Detention Centre for three months on suspicion that he had committed several counts of fraud. On 17 April 1997 the prosecution service filed a bill of indictment against the applicant.   His application for release was rejected by Kielce Regional Court on 6 October 1997. He was released from detention on 7 September 1998, after spending one year, five months and 28   days in pre-trial detention.   On 20 May 2003 he was convicted of multiple counts of aggravated fraud and sentenced to two and a half years’ imprisonment and a fine. His sentence was subsequently reduced to two years’ imprisonment suspended for four years.   The applicant alleged that his detention was unlawful and inordinately lengthy. He relied on Articles 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that between 10 June 1997 (when the applicant’s detention order expired) and 6 October 1997 there was no judicial decision authorising the applicant’s detention. As it had already found in previous judgments, the Court considered that keeping a person in detention under a bill of indictment was not “lawful” and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1.   The Court found that the grounds given for the applicant’s pre-trial detention were not “sufficient” and “relevant” to justify holding him in custody for the whole period in question and that it had not been established that the authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings against the applicant.   The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   The Court awarded the applicant 3,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English)   Zawadka v. Poland (no. 48542/99)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Henryk Zawadka, is a Polish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Celestynów (Poland).   The applicant and O. lived together for an unspecified period and, in 1994, O. gave birth to the applicant’s son, P. In August 1996 O. moved out with P.   On 8 November 1996 the applicant and O. concluded a friendly settlement. They agreed that P.’s place of residence would be with his mother. The applicant had a right to take P. to his home at specified dates and times in 1996. Starting from 1 January 1997 he was supposed to spend every second weekend with his son at his home.   Subsequently the applicant asked for assistance in meetings with P. claiming that O. was obstructing contact. In the meantime parental responsibility proceedings were instituted.   On 19 May 1997 the applicant took his son away from O. following an altercation. The applicant was ordered to return his son but failed to do so. He went into hiding. On 8 August 1998 the police took P. away from the applicant.   On 24 February 1998 the applicant’s parental responsibility was limited to a right to information about P.’s health and contact with him at O.s home. On 19 June 1998 the applicant was deprived of all parental rights in respect of P, on the ground that he had abused his rights by making it impossible for his son to contact his mother, when a mother’s care at that stage of a child’s development was indispensable. It was also found that the applicant’s continuing hiding was to the child’s detriment, especially because he was apparently working and his son was taken care of by other people. It emphasised that the child had the right to decent living conditions, a home and stability, of which the applicant had deprived him.     On 27 March 2001 the applicant was informed that O. and P. had left for London on 30 May 2000.   The proceedings are stayed.   The applicant complained that he had not been able to have his access rights enforced as the domestic authorities failed to give him adequate assistance. He further complained about an alleged breach of his and his son’s rights to respect for their private and family life. He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights found that the Polish authorities had failed to take practical steps that would, firstly, encourage the parties to co-operate in the enforcement of the access arrangements and, secondly, secure concrete and appropriate assistance by competent state agents within a specific legal framework suited to the needs of separated parents and their underage child. The Court emphasised that this resulted in the applicant permanently losing contact with his child. The Court concluded that the domestic authorities failed in their positive obligation to provide the applicant with assistance which would make it possible for the applicant to effectively enforce his parental and access rights. The Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 8 and awarded the applicant EUR   100 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English).   Ghibuşi v. Romania (no. 7893/02)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Stela Ghibuşi, is a Romanian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Livezile (Romania).   Following the reorganisation and privatisation of the Romanian medical system, the applicant, who was employed as a medical assistant at the hospital in the town of Deta, was transferred to work as the assistant of a single doctor. Although she had not signed a new contract, she worked for that doctor for several months, before being informed, on 5 January 2000, that she was to be dismissed.   The applicant brought proceedings seeking reinstatement in her post. By a final judgment of 11 May 2001 the Timiş Provincial Court ordered the doctor to sign a contract of employment with her. In spite of the steps she then took, the applicant could not obtain enforcement of the order for her reinstatement.   Relying on Article 6   § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial), the applicant submitted that the failure to enforce the judicial decision ordering her reinstatement had infringed her right of access to a court. She further alleged a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court declared the Article 6 § 1 complaint admissible and the Article 13 complaint inadmissible. It noted that the order for the applicant’s reinstatement required the personal intervention of a private individual and observed that the State, as the depository of public force, was required to be diligent and assist the applicant by enforcing the decision in her favour. The applicant had taken a number of steps to obtain enforcement of the decision: she had called on the services of a court bailiff, who had merely drawn up a report noting that the doctor refused to comply with the court’s decision, and had lodged two criminal complaints, one of which had led to the doctor’s conviction.   Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that the authorities to which the applicant applied in seeking enforcement of the final judicial decision did not take all the measures that could reasonably be expected of them and that, as a result, their assistance was totally ineffective. As the Romanian authorities had, through their passivity, deprived the applicant of effective access to a court, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 4,800 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 100 for costs and expenses. (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. [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.