CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 juin 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 } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s87DE4F02 { width:1.46pt; display:inline-block } .s6A04D4A8 { width:162.16pt; display:inline-block } .sAFB06290 { width:254.23pt; display:inline-block } .s96D6B3A6 { width:289.53pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s6B1127B8 { width:142.17pt; 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   428 19.6.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Moldova, Poland and   Slovakia   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] can also be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Amurchanian v. Poland (application no. 8174/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Alward Amurchanian, is an Armenian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Łomianki (Poland).   She was arrested in August 2000 and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of belonging to a gang which had been holding up shopkeepers at gunpoint. She was sentenced to six years and six months’ imprisonment in August 2004 and released in August 2005. The case is currently pending before the Polish courts.   The applicant complained of the length of her pre-trial detention (approximately three years and seven months) and the length of the proceedings against her (six years and seven months to date). She relied on Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Pawlik v. Poland (no. 11638/02)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Henryk Pawlik, is a Polish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Szczecin (Poland).   The application concerned Mr Pawlik’s complaint that the Polish authorities had failed to take effective steps to enforce access arrangements with his son, R., born in 1988, following his divorce with R.’s mother in 1994. He also complained about the length of those proceedings.   He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court observed that it could not be said that the Polish authorities had facilitated the enforcement of the access arrangements. Indeed, due to the authorities’ inaction, the applicant had had to have recourse to a succession of time-consuming and ineffectual remedies to enforce his rights. No satisfactory explanation having been given to justify that delay, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8. Mr   Pawlik was awarded EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 650 for costs and expenses. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 §§   1 and 3 (d) W.S. v. Poland (no. 21508/02)   The applicant, W.S., is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Pabianice (Poland).   The applicant complained about the unfairness of proceedings brought against him for alleged sexual abuse of his daughter, X.. He alleged, in particular, that he had been convicted on the basis of insufficient evidence and that X. had never been questioned.   He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and § 3 (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses).   The Court   observed that criminal proceedings involving sexual offences were often conceived of as an ordeal by the victim, in particular when the latter was a minor and unwillingly confronted with the defendant. Therefore, the Court accepted that in such proceedings certain measures might be taken for the purpose of protecting the victim, provided that they could be reconciled with adequate and effective exercise of the rights of the defence.   The Court   noted the efforts made by the prosecuting authorities to assess whether questioning X. would have been detrimental to her   well-being and development, notably taking into account opinions given by a   psychologist. However, it had not been shown that the authorities envisaged or made attempts, either at the investigation stage, or later, before the court, to test the reliability of the victim in a less invasive manner, such as an   interview in the presence of a psychologist with   written questions   from the defence or, in a studio, enabling the applicant or his lawyer to be present indirectly via a video ‑ link or one ‑ way mirror.     Ultimately, X. had never, at any stage, been questioned either by the police, the prosecutor or the court.   The Court   therefore found that the rights of the defence had been limited to such an extent that the applicant could not be said to have received a fair trial. Accordingly, the Court held by five votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (d). With regard to that finding, the Court held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1 concerning the alleged lack of reasons for the applicant's conviction.   The Court awarded W.S. EUR 1,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 150 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Macko and Kozubaľ v. Slovakia (nos. 64054/00 and 64071/00) No violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicants are two Slovak nationals. Viktor Macko was born in 1965 and lives in Humenné (Slovakia) and Miroslav Kozubal was born in 1963 and lives in Hanušovce (Slovakia).   The case concerned the applicants’ complaint with regard to criminal proceedings against I., one of their business partners, during which they had refused to make witnesses statements in order to avoid criminal proceedings being brought against them. As a result, they had been fined. In particular, they alleged that those fines had violated their right not to incriminate themselves.   They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Noting in particular that, as concerned the first applicant, it had not been established that his refusal to make a statement in the proceedings against I. had any bearing on the fairness of his own subsequent trial, and that charges against the second applicant had been dropped, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   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) Botnari v. Moldova (no. 19981/02)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Andrei Botnari, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1968 and lives in Chişinău.   The applicant complained about non-enforcement of a judgment in his favour concerning the provision of an apartment.   He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 due Moldova’s failure to enforce the final judgment in Mr Botnari’s favour, and a violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy. Mr Botnari was awarded EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 100 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. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.