CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 avril 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2DED9654 { width:26.12pt; display:inline-block } .s81819114 { width:102.17pt; display:inline-block } .sD1417FAC { width:214.89pt; display:inline-block } .sBBC7D9E6 { width:108.15pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4722ECCB { width:358.91pt; display:inline-block } .sD66194E4 { width:217.53pt; display:inline-block } .sBC5B6FA9 { width:127.48pt; display:inline-block } .sEB0B2EEE { width:136.78pt; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   256 24.4.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, Moldova, 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]   B. v. Finland (application no. 17122/02)   No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) W. v. Finland (no. 14151/02)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) The applicants are two Finnish nationals.   B was convicted and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for sexually abusing her two daughters – K. born in October 1986 and J. born in October 1990 – between 1992 and 1996.   W was convicted and sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment for sexually abusing four children during the summer of 2000.   Both applicants were convicted on the basis of the victims’ video-taped pre-trial statements.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained about the unfairness of proceedings against them, namely that they had not been given the opportunity to put questions to the witnesses against them. In the case of B, she had been invited to put questions during the pre-trial investigation, but, not having realised it would be the only opportunity, had turned it down. B also complained that her request for K., who had retracted her allegations during a visit to her in prison, to be heard before the Court of Appeal had been refused. W also complained that the police officer conducting the pre-trial investigation had put leading questions to two of the children.   The European Court of Human Rights found that there had been nothing to indicate that the rights of the defence had not been respected in B’s conviction by the District Court. It further found that it had been within the Court of Appeal’s discretion to decide whether fresh evidence from K. had been relevant and admissible. It therefore held, unanimously, that, in the case of B. , there had been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)of the Convention.   In the case of W. the Court found that neither the applicant nor his counsel had, at any point, been given the opportunity to have questions put to the children and that putting such restrictions on the rights of defence could not be considered worthy of a fair trial. The Court therefore held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) and awarded the applicant 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 8,062 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) and (b) Juha Nuuttinen v. Finland (no. 45830/99) The applicant, Juha Nuutinen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Turku (Finland).   In 1995 Mr Nuutinen was charged, as principal offender, with tax fraud and an accounting offence. He was subsequently sentenced to a suspended one year prison sentence. On appeal he was found guilty, in particular, of aiding and abetting those offences even though that was not part of the initial charges against him.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and § 3 (a) (right to be informed promptly of the accusation against him) and (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence), Mr   Nuutinen complained about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him since he had been convicted of offences which were different from those with which he had initially been charged.   The court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) and (b) and awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   V. v. Finland (no. 40412/98)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant is a Finnish national who was born in 1976.   In 1996 the applicant was convicted for drug related offences and sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 6, the applicant complained about the unfairness of the proceedings against him due to the fact that he had been incited by the police to commit an offence which he would not have otherwise committed. He also complained about the way in which the question of incitement had been examined in those proceedings and the way in which the trial had been conducted.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 insofar as the applicant had been unable to argue his case fully and in due time concerning the entrapment. The Court further held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s remaining complaints. Lastly, the Court held that Article 6 § 2 was not applicable.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Just satisfaction Asito v. Moldova (no. 40663/98)   Struck out   The applicant is an insurance company, Asito, which is based in Chişinǎu.   In a judgment of 8 November 2005 (press release no. 598), the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the quashing of two judgments in the applicant company’s favour. It considered that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.   The Court observed that an agreement had been reached between the applicant and the Government. Having examined the terms of the agreement reached, the Court considered that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Accordingly, the case has been struck out. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Szadejko v. Poland (no. 39031/05)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Pawel Szadejko, is a Polish national who was born in 1983 and lives in Gdańsk (Poland).   On 3 September 2002 he was arrested on suspicion, mainly, of murder. Criminal proceedings were brought against him and in October 2004 he was sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment for interference with an individual’s freedom and failure to assist a person in danger. The conviction was quashed on appeal.   Mr Szadejko was released in March 2006. The case is still pending before the Polish courts.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained, in particular, about the length of his pre-trial detention, which had lasted for a total of two years and nine months.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French)   Berecová v. Slovakia (no. 74400/01)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Adriana Berecová, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Košice (Slovakia).   Following Ms Berecová’s divorce from her husband in 1995, she was granted custody of their two children. In April 2000, an injunction, stating, in particular, that she had grossly neglected her children’s education and that she was suspected of ill-treatment, ordered that they be placed temporarily in the father’s custody. In May 2000, the father being unable to take care of them, the children were ordered to be placed in care.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Ms Berecová complained about the placement of her children in institutional care.   Concluding that the interference with Ms Berecová’s private and family life had not been “in accordance with the law”, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8. Ms Berecová was awarded the applicant EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   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.