CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 mars 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 } .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 } .sAF1EE20D { width:14.08pt; display:inline-block } .sDCFA6638 { width:58.11pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s57218700 { width:304.91pt; display:inline-block } .s622132F { width:159.49pt; 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   166 13.3.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Moldova, Poland and   Serbia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1] (The judgments are available only in English.)     Castraveţ v. Moldova (application no. 23393/05)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 The applicant, Andrei Castraveţ, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1946 and lives in Chişinău. At the relevant time, he had completed his University studies, had employment and lived at a permanent residence. He did not have a criminal record.   On 25 May 2005 Mr Castraveţ was arrested by the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (CFECC) on charges of embezzlement. He was detained in the CFECC remand centre until 11 October 2005 when he was released.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr   Castraveţ complained about his detention on remand and that he was unable to confer in private with his lawyers due to a glass partition in the CFECC lawyer-detainee meeting room.   The European Court of Human Rights considered that the reasons for Mr Castraveţ’s detention were not relevant and sufficient, the decisions taken by the domestic courts having been limited to paraphrasing the Code of Criminal Procedure without further explanation, and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.   The Court observed that the glass partition in the meeting room had no opening making the exchange of documents difficult and that Mr Castraveţ did not present any obvious security risk. Furthermore, given that the background of lawyer-client confidentiality had been a matter of serious concern for Moldovan lawyers (it had even been the cause of a strike by the Moldovan Bar Association), the Court found that the applicant and his lawyer had reasonable grounds to believe that their conversation in the CFECC meeting room had not been confidential. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4. Mr   Castraveţ was awarded 2,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses.   Laskowska v. Poland (no. 77765/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Lucyna Laskowska, is a Polish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Czeladź (Poland).   The application concerned Ms Laskowska’s claim for maintenance allowance in February 1999 following her divorce in 1996 from her husband who subjected her to long-term psychological harassment. She now receives psychiatric treatment and has an invalidity pension. Ultimately, in January 2001, the Supreme Court dismissed Ms   Laskowska’s case on appeal due to non-compliance with the applicable time-limit and absence of legal representation which, in cassation appeal proceedings, was compulsory.   Ms Laskowska complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) that she had not been able to effectively present her case concerning maintenance entitlement because her application for legal aid in the appeal proceedings had been dismissed, the courts having failed to take into consideration her particular circumstances. She also complained that the refusal by Katowice Regional Court to grant legal aid in cassation appeal proceedings had deprived her of access to the Supreme Court.   The Court found that Ms Laskowska had been deprived of effective access to the Supreme Court on account of the Regional Court’s flawed interpretation of domestic law, the latter having refused her legal assistance on the basis that a cassation appeal had not been available in her case. Notwithstanding Ms Laskowska’s financial standing, the Court observed that the Regional Court had not examined the merits of Ms Laskowska’s request for legal aid, and that she could not, therefore, be blamed for not having appointed a counsel to represent her. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,150 for costs and expenses.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Two violations of Article 8 V.A.M. v. Serbia (no. 39177/05)   Violation of Article 13 The application concerned civil proceedings brought in February 1999 by Ms V.A.M. in which she sought to dissolve her marriage to her husband, D.M., to gain sole custody of her daughter, S.M., and to obtain child maintenance. The breakdown of Ms V.A.M.’s marriage and her husband denying all contact with her daughter occurred, it seemed, as a result of her having contracted HIV. Ultimately, a decision to grant Ms V.A.M. provisional custody of S.M. was quashed on appeal in November 2006. The separate civil claim against D.M. is, apparently, still ongoing. Despite an interim access order being made on 23 July 1999 to facilitate access twice a month to her daughter until adoption of a final decision, Ms V.A.M. has currently been unable to see her daughter for some eight years, the access order not having been formally served on D.M..   Ms V.A.M. complained about the length and fairness of the civil proceedings, so far lasting eight years, of which two years and 11 months were to be examined by the Court, and about having been unable to see her only child or exercise her parental rights. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Given what was at stake to Ms V.A.M. and her child, especially with a view to Ms V.A.M.’s medical condition, the Court found that the domestic authorities, instead of showing exceptional diligence in expediting the proceedings, consistently failed to make use of the procedures to oblige D.M. to take part. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 8 as regards the length of the civil proceedings. Furthermore, having regard to the facts of the case, the passage of time and the best interests of S.M., the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 as regards the non-enforcement of the interim access order. It also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   4,350 for costs and expenses.   ***   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.