CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 mars 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 } .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   244 24.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MOJSIEJEW v. POLAND   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Mojsiejew v. Poland (application no. 11818/02).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the failure of the State to explain the circumstances in which Mr Mojsiejew had died in a sobering up centre, and of the ineffective investigation carried out into his death.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 20,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. ( The judgment is available only in English .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Władysława Mojsiejew, is a Polish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Bojszowy (Poland).   The case concerned Ms Mojsiejew’s allegation that staff of a sobering-up centre were responsible for the death of her 25-year-old son, Hubert Mojsiejew, on 28 August 1999 as a result of the steps taken to immobilise him and the lack of ensuing supervision of his state of health.   On 28 August 1999 Hubert Mojsiejew was taken to a sobering up centre, where he was taken to an isolation cell, immobilised with belts and left. He was found dead by staff a few hours later.   On 30   August 1999, an autopsy was carried out which established that a possible cause of death was asphyxiation as a result of pressure having been applied to his neck. The same day the prosecution launched an inquiry and a number of investigative steps were carried out. The exact time of Hubert’s death was never, however, established as the body was not examined at the place where it had been found. Several medical opinions were also prepared. Although they agreed that he had died from asphyxiation, they differed in respect of what had been its cause: some medical reports found that Hubert had been inadequately immobilised with belts on the chest and had suffocated; others that he had died as a result of pressure being applied to his neck, most probably when a member of the centre’s staff had put him in a headlock.   In the domestic court proceedings, several employees of the sobering-up centre were found guilty for Hubert’s death and were sentenced to two years in prison, suspended for a probationary period of three years. Following an appeal both by Ms   Mojsiejew and the sentenced individuals, the judgment was annulled and the case sent for a new examination. The case was still pending in May 2008.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21 July 1999 and declared partly admissible on 26 April 2005.   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), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ledi Bianku (Albania), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), judges , and also Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article   2 (right to life), Ms Mojsiejew complained in particular that her son had been killed by representatives of the State and that there had not been an effective investigation into the circumstances of his death.   Decision of the Court   Article 2 (investigation)   The Court noted that, although the investigation had been concluded in little over a year, the trial in the case had started more than two years after charges had been brought against the accused. Moreover, Hubert Mojsiejew’s body had not been examined at the place where it had been found, which had made it impossible to establish the time of his death and thus determine the personal responsibility of each of the accused. Indeed, Władysława Mojsiejew had only been heard by the court for the first time almost five years after the death of her son, and, in addition to a number of other delays which had occurred during the domestic court proceedings, the case was still pending on May 2008. The Court therefore concluded that the Polish authorities had failed to carry out a prompt and effective investigation into the death of Hurbert Mojsiejew, in violation of Article 2.   Article 2 (death of Hubert Mojsiejew)   The Court first held that, although the proceedings were still pending before the domestic authorities, it was not prevented from examining whether the State was responsible for the investigation carried out into Hubert’s death. Having noted that Hubert had been taken to the sobering centre in good health and without pre-existing injuries or obvious illnesses, and that the Government had failed to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for his death, the Court held that the State was responsible, and that there had therefore been a violation of Article 2.     ***   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.