CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 mai 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 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 }   388 12.5.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Poland, Romania, and   Slovakia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments, none of which is final [1] .   One repetitive case [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Mrozowski v. Poland (application no. 9258/04) The applicant, Artur Mrozowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Piastów (Poland). On 28   April 2002, Mr   Mrozowski was on his way home from work by train when football hooligans started to vandalise the carriage and its windows; the police intervened. Caught up in the incident, the applicant alleged that a policeman hit him in the face with a truncheon; he lost several teeth. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained about the excessive use of force used against him by the police and that the Polish authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations. The European Court of Human Rights considered that the Polish Government had not provided any argument to prove that Mr   Mrozowski’s conduct had been such as to justify recourse to the considerable physical force that, judging by the seriousness of his injuries, had to have been employed by the police. The Court could therefore only conclude that he had been violently assaulted by the police without any justification, and contrary to the domestic law, causing him serious injury. Furthermore, the investigation into his allegations had been superficial, lacked objectivity and ended in decisions containing conclusions unsupported by a careful analysis of the facts. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article   3 of the Convention both on account of Mr   Mrozowski’s ill-treatment by police officers and the absence of an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment. The Court awarded him 10,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,700 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in English .)   Two violations of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 5 § 3 No violation of Article 6 § 1 Tănase v. Romania (no. 5269/02) The applicant, Niculae Tănase, is a Romanian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Bucharest. In February 2001 Mr Tănase, who was a director of a company selling petroleum products, was placed under investigation and detained on suspicion, among other things, of incitement to deceit, tax evasion, forgery of documents and embezzlement. He was held in Ploieşti Prison. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleged, with regard to his detention, that his state of health had been incompatible with imprisonment, that he had not received appropriate medical treatment for his cancer and diabetes and that he had been subjected to degrading treatment while in hospital. He also relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), complaining of the failure to justify his pre ‑ trial detention – which ended with his final criminal conviction in 2006 – and of the length of the criminal proceedings against him. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the incompatibility of Mr Tănase’s state of health with pre-trial detention and of the fact that he had been handcuffed to his bed while in hospital. It further held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention (approximately two years), and found that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. Mr Tănase was awarded EUR   8,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive case   The following case raises an issue which has already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Elias v. Romania (no. 32800/02) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the applicants’ complaint of an infringement of their property rights.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Ziętal v. Poland (no. 64972/01) Buľková v. Slovakia (no. 35017/03)     ***   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 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 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.