CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 septembre 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 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s1F5805B3 { width:315.32pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sAF1A2C81 { width:70.78pt; display:inline-block } .s201FBFFF { width:299.57pt; display:inline-block } .sF78A0CCA { width:178.18pt; display:inline-block } .s847457CA { width:162.83pt; display:inline-block } .sAEB1AA01 { width:44.15pt; display:inline-block } .sE95971D4 { width:284.9pt; display:inline-block } .sF810599F { width:90.81pt; display:inline-block } .sE546A0A1 { width:140.79pt; 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   574 6.9.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Moldova, Poland, Slovakia and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 17 Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Kąkol v. Poland (application no. 3994/03) Mucha v. Poland (no. 32849/04) Schmalz v. Poland (no. 19177/03) The applicants, Jarosław Kąkol, Marian Mucha and Hari Schmalz, are three Polish nationals who were born in 1969, 1954 and 1953 respectively.   Mr Kąkol was arrested on suspicion of armed robbery in April 1999 and remanded in custody. His detention was extended several times until his release on 19 October 2005. Mr Schmalz was arrested in February 2001 and Mr Mucha in August 2001. Both applicants were suspected of drug offences and placed in pre-trial detention. Their pre-trial detention was prolonged on several occasions. On 16 December 2004 the domestic courts sentenced Mr Schmalz to four years and six months’ imprisonment and Mr Mucha to eight years’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, they complained about the length of their pre-trial detention. Mr Schmalz also alleged that his trial was unfair (Article 6 § 1).   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 in all three cases, Mr Kąkol’s pre-trial detention having lasted six years and six months, Mr Mucha’s three years and almost four months and Mr Schmalz’s three years and almost ten months. The Court dismissed the remainder of Mr Schmalz’s application. It awarded Mr Kąkol and Mr Schmalz 2,000 euros (EUR) each and Mr Mucha 1,500 EUR for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Kijewska v. Poland (no. 73002/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Božena Kijewska, is a Polish national who was born in 1943 and lives in Legnica (Poland).   From 1999 to 2004, she brought three sets of proceedings in which she lodged three unsuccessful claims for rectification of an entry in a local land register. She sought to be considered as the sole owner of a real estate inherited from her late father and erroneously recorded as owned jointly by herself and her husband. During the second set of proceedings the applicant made an application to be exempted from court fees, claiming that her income – a monthly disability pension and extra income as a self-employed lawyer – only allowed her to support herself and her daughter. The judicial authorities held that her financial situation was sound and dismissed the application.     The applicant complained that excessive court fees prevented her from proceeding with her land registration claim in breach of her right of access to a court (Article 6 § 1). The Court declared the complaint admissible in respect of the second set of proceedings and the remainder of the application inadmissible.   The Court noted that the judicial authorities assessed the applicant’s financial situation solely on the ground that she was a lawyer and appeared to equate her monthly income with her yearly income. It observed that the domestic courts could have and should have considered the possibility of partially exempting the applicant from payment of the court fees due in the proceedings. The Court concluded that the refusal to reduce the fee for lodging the applicant's claim constituted a disproportionate restriction on her right of access to a court and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It awarded Mrs Kijewska EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     No violation of Article 5 § 3 Kliza v. Poland (no. 8363/04)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Sebastian Kliza, is a Polish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Mikołów (Poland).   He was arrested in January 2001 on suspicion of having committed a series of armed robberies as a member of an organised criminal gang, and ordered to be detained pending the outcome of the investigation. His detention was prolonged on several occasions. Ultimately, on 11 February 2005 he was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. On 27 April 2004 the Court had received the applicant's application form in an envelope which bore the following stamp: “District Court in Tychy, censored”.      The applicant complained about the length of his pre-trial detention (Article 5 § 3), the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him (Article 6 § 1) and interference with his correspondence with the Court (Article 8).   The Court has held on many occasions that as long as the Polish authorities continue to mark detainees’ letters with the “censored” stamp, it has no alternative but to presume that those letters have been opened and their contents read. In respect of the letter of 27 April 2004, it held unanimously that there had been “interference” with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence under Article   8 and that therefore there had been a violation of that provision. The Court further considered that the domestic authorities had handled Mr Kliza’s case with acceptable expedition and held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. The Court awarded Mr Kliza EUR 500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Lewak v. Poland (no. 21890/03)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Jerzy Lewak, is a Polish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Rejowiec Fabryczny (Poland).   In November 2002 Mr Lewak was charged with armed robbery and ordered to be detained on remand. Ultimately, on 12 September 2003 the domestic courts discontinued the investigation against him, holding that the evidence obtained did not confirm that he had taken part in the armed robbery. The envelopes of two letters Mr Lewak addressed from prison to the Court in May and October 2003 bore stamps that read “censored” and appeared to have been cut open and subsequently resealed with adhesive tape.   The applicant alleged ill-treatment by police officers and a prison guard (Article 3) and complained about interference with his correspondence with the Court (Article 8).   The Court has held on many occasions that as long as the Polish authorities continue to mark detainees’ letters with the “censored” stamp, it has no alternative but to presume that those letters have been opened and their contents read. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 and also declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. It awarded Mr Lewak EUR 500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Skrzyński v. Poland (no. 38672/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Piotr Skrzyński, is a Polish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Milanówek (Poland).   The case concerned a plot of land owned by Mr Skrzyński which had been included in a local development plan to build a ring-road and a hospital at some point in the future. The applicant's objections to the plan were dismissed.   Mr Skrzyński complained about the future expropriation of his land, in breach of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention).   The Court noted that it was uncertain whether the land development plan would be implemented in the reasonably near future. It further observed that a fair balance had not been struck between the competing general and individual interests and that the applicant had had to bear an excessive individual burden. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded Mr Skrzyński EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Two violations of Article 5 § 4 Cabala v. Slovakia (no. 8607/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Peter Cabala, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Prievidza (Slovakia).   In August 1999 he was arrested on a charge of conspiracy and extortion. The charge was based on the suspicion that, acting as part of an organised group and posing as a police officer, the applicant had lured an individual into a car, driven him to another place and forced money out of him. During his detention the applicant lodged several unsuccessful requests for release until domestic courts decided to release him on 31 July 2002. The criminal proceedings against him are still pending.   The applicant complained about the unlawfulness of his detention, notably the speediness of the procedure for challenging its lawfulness (Article   5), and about the fairness and length of the criminal proceedings brought against him (Article 6 § 1).   The Court noted that the proceedings concerning the applicant’s requests for release of 6 and 20 July 2001, determined in private sessions, had not been fair. It also noted that those proceedings had lasted at least eighty-eight days. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 5 § 4 on account of the lack of fairness and “speediness” of those proceedings. It also considered that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. The Court awarded Mr Cabala EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Haris v. Slovakia (no. 14893/02)   Violation of Article 5 § 4 The applicant, Sándor Haris, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Budapest. He is a businessman with commercial activities in Hungary and Slovakia.   In September 1999 Mr Haris was charged in Slovakia with blackmail. He was suspected of having participated in an operation that involved posing as police officers, luring two individuals from a restaurant, attacking them with a handgun, wounding and tying one of the victims up, taking him to another place and coercing him into revealing information about two other persons. He was arrested in November 1999 and remanded in custody. From November 1999 to February 2002 the applicant lodged several unsuccessful requests for release on bail. He was ultimately released on an unspecified date. The criminal proceedings against him are still pending.   The applicant complained about the unlawfulness of his detention, notably the speediness of the procedure for challenging its lawfulness (Article   5), and about the fairness and the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him (Article 6 § 1).   The Court found a lack of “speediness” concerning the applicant’s request for release of 20 February 2001, which was decided more than eight months later. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 in respect of that request. The Court declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive cases   Non-enforcement cases   In the following cases the applicants complain about the non-enforcement of national judicial decisions in their favour (Article 6 § 1 and, in some cases, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 Ungureanu v. Moldova (no. 27568/02) Lozynskyy and Others v. Ukraine (no. 28562/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Fateyev v. Ukraine (no. 39265/02) Shamray v. Ukraine (no. 74096/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 13 Morgunenko v. Ukraine (no. 43382/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Sikorska v. Ukraine (no. 34339/03)   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complain of the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings (Article 6 § 1).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Lastovka v. Ukraine (no. 12347/02) Tsykhanovskyy v. Ukraine (no. 3572/03)   ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   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.