CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 novembre 2006

.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 } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s6066DECA { width:252.25pt; display:inline-block } .sD19AB22 { width:250.84pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   671 07.11.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, Hungary, Poland and   Slovakia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Hass v. Poland (application no 2782/04) The applicant, Ryszard Hass, is a Polish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Torún (Poland).   On 15 November 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed several car thefts. He was remanded in custody until 18 August 2004. The proceedings against him are still pending.   The applicant complained about the length of his pre-trial detention lasting two years and nine months. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and awarded the applicant 1,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 100 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation Article 6 § 1 (length) Šmál v. Slovakia (no. 69208/01) The applicant, Tibor Šmál, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Príbovce (Slovakia).   On 10 December 1996 he was accused of illegally possessing arms, an offence for which he was later convicted and given a six months’ suspended sentence. The judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court on 30 January 2002.   The applicant complained about the length of the criminal proceedings which lasted over five years. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and awarded the applicant 3,500 EUR for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the excessive length of civil proceedings.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Molander v. Finland (no. 10615/03) Azjert v. Hungary (no. 18328/03) Łukjaniuk v. Poland (no. 15072/02) Romejko v. Poland (no. 74209/01)     No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Sekułowicz v. Poland (no. 64249/01)     ***   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 ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   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.   [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.