CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 février 2009

.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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   79 3.2.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT KAUCZOR v. POLAND   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its lead judgment [1] in the case of Kauczor v. Poland (application no. 45219/06).   The Court held unanimously that there had been:   a violation of Article   5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the excessive length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention; and, a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), on account of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Mr   Kauczor 10,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. ( The judgment is available only in English .)   Furthermore the Court observed that numerous cases – both already decided and still pending before it – concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention in Poland revealed a frequently recurring problem consisting of domestic courts’ practice that was incompatible with the Convention. While welcoming the steps already taken by Poland to remedy this systemic problem, the Court concluded that, in view of the magnitude of the problem, Poland had to make consistent efforts in the long term and adopt further measures in order to achieve compliance with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Adam Kauczor, is a Polish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Siemianowice Śląskie (Poland).   On 9 February 2000 he was arrested and detained on suspicion of murder. On 21 June 2000 he was indicted for murder and illegal possession of weapons.   The first hearing in his case, scheduled for 28 December 2000, was adjourned. Overall, during the next 7 years, the competent domestic court scheduled more than 110 hearings, a number of which did not take place. Meanwhile, Mr Kauczor’s trial was discontinued and restarted in May 2003, because the judge rapporteur had retired.   In 2006 Mr Kauczor complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. The competent court dismissed his complaint.   Mr Kauczor’s detention was extended by numerous court decisions issued between July 2003 and January 2007. In those decisions the authorities relied primarily on the serious nature of the offences with which he was charged, the severity of the penalty to which he was liable, and the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. On 11 December 2007 the applicant was released; the criminal proceedings against him are still pending.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 5   November 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Ján Šikuta (Slovakia), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), Nebojša Vučinić (Montenegro), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained that the length of his pre-trial detention, and of the criminal proceedings against him, had been excessive.   Decision of the Court   Article 5 § 3   The Court first noted that Mr Kauczor had been detained in total for 7 years, 10 months and 3 days. While it accepted that the seriousness of the offence, which the applicant was suspected of having committed, could have been a valid consideration for detaining him initially, it concluded that the authorities had failed to justify the overall period of his detention, in violation of Article 5 § 3.   Article 6 § 1   The Court found that the length of the criminal proceedings, which had lasted for more than 8 years and 6 months at a single level of jurisdiction, and are still pending, had been excessive, in violation of Article 6 § 1.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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 Convention, 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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.