CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 juin 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 }   457 9.6.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Italy, Poland and   Spain   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 13   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 Jan Pawlak v. Poland (application no. 8661/06) Marzec v. Poland (no. 42868/06) The applicants are two Polish nationals. Jan Wiesław Pawlak was born in 1966 and lives in Zgierz (Poland); Paweł Marzec was born in 1973 and is currently detained in prison in Zabrze (Poland). They were convicted of various crimes while acting in an organised criminal group. Relying in particular on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, they complained of the length of their detention pending trial. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that in both cases there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the excessive length of the applicants’ detention: just over two years and nine months in the case of Jan Pawlak , and four years and almost five months in the case of Marzec . The Court awarded Mr   Pawlak 1,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   800 for costs and expenses. It awarded Mr   Marzec EUR   2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   100 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 8 Krawiecki v. Poland (no. 49128/06) The applicant, Stanisław Krawiecki, is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Lubiąż (Poland). Diagnosed as suffering from severe schizophrenia, he has been detained in a pre-trial detention centre and in a mental hospital. Relying on all Articles of the Convention, Mr   Krawiecki submitted that he had been ill-treated during his detention. The Court raised of its own motion an issue under Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence) concerning the applicant’s correspondence with the Court’s Registry while in detention. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   8 on account of the monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence which had been contrary to domestic law. It further held that the remainder of Mr   Krawiecki’s application was inadmissible, his submission being too confused. The applicant made no claim under Article   41 (just satisfaction). (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Matoń v. Poland (no. 30279/07) The applicant, Adam Matoń, is a Polish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Kraków (Poland). In February 2008 he was convicted of drug trafficking, unlawful possession of firearms and membership of an organised criminal gang. The proceedings against him, for which 200   hearings have been held, are still pending. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr   Matoń complained of the excessive length of these proceedings. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the excessive length – eight years and eight months – of the criminal proceedings, and awarded Mr   Matoń EUR   2,900 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) Sobolewski v. Poland (No. 2) (no. 19847/07) Strzałkowski v. Poland (no. 31509/02) The applicants, Daniel Sobolewski and Janusz Strzałkowski are Polish nationals who were born in 1963 and 1964 respectively. They are currently serving prison sentences in Poland, Mr   Sobolewski for fraud and Mr Strzałkowski for murder. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), the two applicants complained that they had not been notified of the sole hearing before the Court of Appeal in the criminal proceedings against them. The Court found that their appeals had not been limited to the legal aspects of their cases as the applicants, represented by lawyers, had essentially sought to challenge the soundness of their convictions on the facts. The Court noted that under the Polish law of criminal procedure the jurisdiction of an appeal court extended to questions of both fact and law. In these circumstances, where questions of both fact and law had been covered by the jurisdiction of appeal, Article   6 required that the accused be allowed to be present at the hearing and that   they be notified in advance in clear terms of   their right to do so. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 in conjunction with Article   6   §   3   (c) and awarded each applicant EUR   1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Bendayan Azcantot and Benalal Bendayan v. Spain (no. 28142/04) The applicants, Gimol-Violeta Bendayan Azcantot and Samuel Benalal Bendayan, are Spanish nationals who live in Madrid. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they complained about the time taken to enforce a final criminal judgment in their favour. The Court found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1, on account of the duration – seven years and ten months – of the enforcement process. The Court awarded each applicant EUR   8,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Moreno Carmona v. Spain (no. 26178/04) The applicant, Agustín Moreno Carmona, is a Spanish national who was born in 1947 and lives in Santa Amalia (Spain). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complained about the length of criminal proceedings against him for bank robbery. The Court unanimously found that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings – almost 13   years and six months – and awarded the applicant EUR   20,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,500 pour costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 13 Di Pasquale v. Italy (no. 27522/04)   Violation of Article 8 Scannella and Others v. Italy (no. 33873/04) The Court found the above violations in these two cases concerning bankruptcy proceedings.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Vessichelli v. Italy (no. 29290/02) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning expropriation of the applicant’s land.     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) Henryk Kozłowski v. Poland (no. 17731/03) Kamecki and Others v. Poland (no. 62506/00)     ***   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 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.