CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 novembre 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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   744 6.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova and Poland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following ten Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   One repetitive case [2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.   Violation of Article 8 Šobota-Gajić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application no. 27966/06) The applicant, Verica Šobota-Gajić, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in 1964 and lives in Nova Topola (Bosnia and Herzegovina). She married Z.G. in 1992 and they had a daughter, A., born in 1992, and a son, B., born in 1994.   The case concerned Verica Šobota-Gajić’s attempts over the course of six years to be reunited with her son.   Due to alleged domestic violence the applicant left her husband in 2001. She took her daughter with her but did not succeed in taking her son. In May 2001 she asked Gradiška Social Work Centre to grant her custody of both her children. In February 2003 she was granted a divorce and awarded custody. Due to interdepartmental administrative disputes, that decision was only enforced in December 2003, when B. was handed over to the care of his mother. The following day, Z.G. abducted him. The applicant brought criminal proceedings against her former husband which remained at a preliminary investigation stage until 14 January 2006, when Z.G. died. B. remained with his paternal grandmother, D.B.. In March 2006 Gradiška Minor Offence Court convicted D.B. of subjecting her grandson to psychological violence and ordered the Social Work Centre to ensure prompt return of B. to his mother, with the help of the police if necessary. There was some confusion as to responsibility for enforcement of that decision and B. was only finally handed over to the care of his mother on 22 January 2007.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Šobota-Gajić’s complained that the national authorities had failed to take all reasonable measures to facilitate her reunion with her son, regardless of domestic decisions in her favour.   Counting from the date, July 2002, that Bosnia and Herzegovina ratified the Convention, the Court noted that the applicant’s separation from her son had lasted for more than four and a half years. It further noted that enforcement of the decision of February 2003 took more than nine months and the decision of March 2006 almost ten months and that those delays had been caused by confusion as to who was responsible for enforcement. There was no indication that the applicant could be held accountable for those delays. Furthermore, the Government gave no explanation as to why the criminal proceedings against Z.G. had remained at the preliminary stage for more than two years after the abduction. There was no evidence either that those delays had been on account of needing to prepare B. to return to his mother with whom he had not lived for some time. The European Court of Human Rights therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and awarded Ms   Šobota-Gajić 8,800   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   4,700 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Patsuria v. Georgia (no. 30779/04) The applicant, Gia Patsuria, is a Georgian national who was born in 1961 and is currently in prison in Rustavi (Georgia).   In April 2004, a criminal case was launched into the misappropriation of 90% of “Georgian State Insurance JSC” shares through fraud and falsification of bank documents. Mr Patsuria was charged and taken into custody in May 2004. His detention on remand was ordered, upheld and extended by court decisions of 8 and 13 May and 6 December 2004. Ultimately, he was convicted for attempted fraud on 11 February 2005 and sentenced to three years imprisonment. That decision was upheld on appeal.   Mr Patsuria   complained that his detention on remand had not been reasonable within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security). He alleged in particular that the authorities, when authorising his detention, only relied on the gravity of the charges against him and the reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime.   The Court noted that the length of the applicant’s detention, nine months and 12 days, had not been obviously excessive. However, the Georgian courts, relying essentially on the gravity of the charges against the applicant, had failed to address the specific circumstances of his case or to consider alternative pre-trial measures. The Court was particularly concerned about the decision of 6 December 2004 which was a standard template with pre-printed reasoning. It therefore concluded that the grounds for the applicant’s detention could not be regarded as “relevant” and “sufficient” and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5   §   3. Mr   Patsuria was awarded EUR   1,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,170 for costs and expenses. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 1 Two violations of Article 5 § 3 Two violations of Article 5 § 4 Muşuc v. Moldova (no. 42440/06) The applicant, Eduard Muşuc, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1975 and lives in Chişinău. He is the Chief Executive Officer of Megadat.com SRL and the leader of a political opposition party called “The Socialist Democratic Party of Moldova”.   Mr Muşuc was arrested on 28 September 2006 on suspicion of misappropriation of an office building. He had allegedly bought it from a bank at a lower price than its market value. He was remanded in custody on the basis that he had, in particular, committed a serious offence and had attempted to influence a witness, E.S.. His numerous requests to be released were refused for the same reasons until 11 October 2006 when the Court of Appeal decided to release him on bail . As the applicant was unable to pay, he remained in detention. Ultimately, Buiucani District Court ordered his release without bail on 14 November 2006.   Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Mr Muşuc complained of the unlawfulness of his detention on remand. He complained, in particular, that the prosecution did not provide evidence to support the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence, in breach of Article 5 § 1; that the reasons for his pre-trial detention were not relevant and sufficient and that the amount fixed for bail was excessive, in breach of Article 5 § 3; and, that he had not been given access to a copy of E.S.’s statement and a glass partition in the detention centre prevented him from having confidential meetings with his lawyer, in breach of Article 5 § 4.   The Court was not satisfied that the evidence relied on by the Moldovan courts had been sufficient to detain the applicant: notably a witness had been referred to without any further information. The applicant’s detention had therefore not been based on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question and the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1.   As concerned Article 5 § 3, the Court noted with concern the recurring nature of the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention on remand in Moldova and that, even though it had frequently found violations, the problem persisted. In the applicant’s case, the Moldovan courts had paraphrased the reasons for his detention and not explained how they had applied. On that account, the Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. It found a further violation on account of the applicant being required to pay bail and then being detained for failing to pay. Given that finding, it considered that it was not necessary to examine whether the amount of bail had been excessive.   Lastly, the Court found that the courts had not reacted to the applicant’s repeated requests to have E.S. summoned as a witness or, without giving any reason, to let him see a transcript of her statements. The applicant had therefore been unable to challenge properly the reasons for his detention and the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4. As concerned the interference with his right to communicate confidentially with his lawyers, the Court recalled that it had already found violations in similar cases raising the same issue under the Convention and therefore held that there had been a further violation of Article 5 § 4. The Court awarded Mr Muşuc EUR   9,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bugajny and Others v. Poland (no. 22531/05) The applicants are three Polish nationals who live in Poznań (Poland). Paweł Bugajny was born in 1963, and Tadeusz Ratajczak and Jarosław Słuja were born in 1964. They have a company “Trust” Ltd., which owns land in Poznań.   In 1995 the company asked the local municipality to decide on the division of their land in Poznań with a view to building a housing estate. As a result, a number of plots were designated for the construction of roads. Subsequently, the company requested that those plots be expropriated and that compensation be paid for them. The authorities refused, on the ground that the roads were “private” and therefore the land on which they were built had to remain the property of the applicants’ company. The administrative court and civil courts upheld that refusal. Ultimately the Supreme Court refused to examine their cassation appeal in December 2004.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained about the Polish authorities’ refusal to expropriate their land, which had been used for roads accessible to the general public, and give them compensation.   The Court considered that the interference with the applicants’ property rights had had a legal basis, namely the Land Administration Act 1997, and corresponded to the general interest of the community in that it had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the municipal budget. However, the applicants had not only had to bear the costs of building and maintaining the roads on their land but had also had to accept that the land be used as public property. The roads built on the estate currently serve both the general public and the housing estate which the applicants developed and are open both to public and private transport of all kinds. Furthermore, the applicants’ land could never be used for anything other than roads and the obligation to maintain them was not subject to any time-limit. The Court therefore found that a fair balance had not been struck between general and individual interests and that the applicants had had to bear an excessive individual burden. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicants, jointly, EUR   247,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR   18,725 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 5 § 4 Chruściński v. Poland (no. 22755/04) The applicant, Sławomir Chruściński, is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Wyględy (Poland).   On 2 April 2003, Mr Chruściński was arrested and charged with having helped to sell two stolen cars as a member of an organised criminal gang. On 4 April he was detained on remand. He made numerous requests to be released and appeals against the courts’ decisions to extend his detention. They were all refused notably on the ground that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime and a risk that he might influence witnesses. His requests to have access to his case-file were also dismissed until 6 December 2004, when his lawyer was given permission to consult the file. Ultimately, on 10   November 2005 the applicant voluntarily accepted a sentence of three years and six months imprisonment and a fine. He was released the same day.   Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), he complained of the length and unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention, and in particular about the refusal to grant him access to the case-file.   The Court concluded that, given the complexity of the case which involved organised crime, the Polish courts had given “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons to justify detaining the applicant for a period of two years and seven months and had shown “special diligence” in handling his case. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3. It noted, however, that neither the applicant nor his lawyer had been given access to the case-file for a total of 20 months and that access had been essential for them to challenge the lawfulness of the applicant’s arrest and continuation of his detention on remand. Therefore the procedure had not been truly adversarial. Consequently, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4. Mr   Chruściński was awarded EUR   1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 1 Mocarska v. Poland (no. 26917/05) The applicant, Bożena Mocarska, is a Polish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Pruszków (Poland). She shared a flat with her sister and her sister’s husband. She suffers from psychiatric problems.   In May 2005, following a knife attack on her sister, Ms Mocarska was arrested and charged with domestic violence and admitted to Warsaw Detention Centre. Her pre-trial detention was extended on numerous occasions on the ground that there was a reasonable suspicion that she had committed the offence and risked re-offending. In August 2005 the applicant’s lawyer requested her release on account of her psychiatric condition and the fact that her prolonged detention had seriously affected her health. In September 2005, she was diagnosed as suffering from a delusional disorder and doctors recommended that she be placed in a psychiatric hospital. On 25 October 2005 Warsaw District Court discontinued the proceedings against her on the ground that she could not be held criminally responsible. However, she remained in the detention centre waiting for a placement in Pruszków Psychiatric Hospital to be recommended by a commission and a place to become available there. She was finally transferred on 30 June 2006 to that hospital.   Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), Ms Mocarska complained that she had been unlawfully detained in an ordinary remand centre for eight months pending her admission to a psychiatric hospital.   The Court declared the applicant’s complaint concerning her detention from 25 October 2005 to 30 June 2006 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible. The Court found that an eight-month delay in the admission of the applicant to a psychiatric hospital and the resulting delay in her psychiatric treatment could not be regarded as acceptable. In the circumstances of the applicant’s case, a reasonable balance had not been struck between her right to liberty and the risk that she represented to her family and others. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 concerning her detention between 25   October 2005 and 30   June 2006. The applicant made no claim for just satisfaction and her claim for costs and expenses was dismissed. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Ratusznik v. Poland (no. 28492/04) The applicant, Maciej Ratusznik, is a Polish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Gdańsk (Poland).   In December 2001 he was arrested on suspicion of murder and kidnapping, among other offences, and placed in pre-trial detention. Criminal proceedings against him are still pending in the regional court and the applicant is still detained.   Relying on Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Ratusznik complained of the length of his pre-trial detention and of the criminal proceedings against him, arguing that it had been excessive.   The Court noted that the overall length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention had already exceeded two years. It observed that the reasons given by the Polish courts in their decisions were not sufficient to justify this continuing detention and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. The Court further noted that the criminal proceedings, which were still pending, had already lasted for more than five years. It considered that such a period was excessive and that it failed to satisfy the reasonable time requirement, and accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It awarded Mr   Ratusznik EUR   2,800 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Zwierz v. Poland (no. 39205/04) The applicant, Andrzej Zwierz, is a Polish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Lublin (Poland).   In November 2002 he was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of committing 11 offences, including ten counts of armed robbery, false imprisonment and circulating counterfeit money, aided and abetted by others. His detention was prolonged several times and continued until his conviction. In December 2006 the applicant was found guilty of seven offences and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Zwierz complained that the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive.   The Court noted that the overall length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been about three years and five months. It considered that the reasons given by the Polish courts in their decisions were not sufficient to justify this continuing detention and accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. It awarded Mr   Zwierz EUR   1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive case   The following case raised issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Banca VIAS v. Moldova (no. 32760/04) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning the failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicant company’s favour.     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The Court held that it was not necessary to examine separately whether there had also been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Sernawit and Others v. Poland (no. 61967/00)     ***   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.