CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 février 2007

.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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s699C60D7 { width:33.45pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4C62F097 { width:14.82pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sA87CC3D6 { width:65.48pt; 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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   97 13.2.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, Moldova, Poland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   One repetitive case [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Czajka v. Poland (application no. 15067/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Marek Czajka, is a Polish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Gdynia (Poland).   Convicted on charges of robbery, kidnapping and larceny and sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment, the applicant complained that the length (seven years, six months and 15 days) of criminal proceedings brought against him were excessive, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Also relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, the applicant alleged that the length (five years, five months and 11 days) of his detention on remand, was unreasonable.   Despite the Government’s argument that the applicant could no longer be considered a “victim” because he had already been awarded 712 euros (EUR) as a result of the Gdánsk Court of Appeal finding a violation in respect of the length of criminal proceedings against him, the European Court of Human Rights nonetheless declared the application admissible on the ground that the above compensation, only amounting to 25% of what the Court would most likely have awarded the applicant, was insufficient.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   Krzych and Gurbierz v. Poland (no. 35615/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicants, Władysław Krzych and Tadeusz Gurbierz, are Polish nationals who were born in 1942 and 1946 respectively and live in Rybnik (Poland).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicants complained about the fairness and length (11 years, two months and nine days for two levels of jurisdiction) of proceedings relating to their conviction for fraud, for which they were sentenced to suspended prison sentences of one year and six months and two years respectively.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the excessive length of proceedings and awarded each applicant EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 100 for costs and expenses. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.     Repetitive case   In the following case the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Venera-Nord-Vest Borta A.G. v. Moldova (no. 31535/03) The applicant, Venera-Nord-Vest Borta A.G., is a company incorporated in Moldova.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant company complained about the quashing of a final judgment in its favour. The judgment related to an action brought by the applicant company seeking damages for breach of contract, which involved locating assets belonging to the debtors of another private company in exchange of a commission.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant company EUR 28,333 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 985 for costs and expenses.   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Saarenpään Loma Ky v. Finland (no. 54508/00) No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Mierkiewicz v. Poland (no. 77833/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   ***   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. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the European Convention on Human Rights.