CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 mars 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s5529FF56 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase; color:#0000ff } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } 170 02.03.2010     Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]   Adamkiewicz v. Poland (no. 54729/00)   MINOR   deprived of speedy access to his lawyer and his case investigated and tried by the same judge: UNFAIR CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS   Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing) taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Paweł Adamkiewicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1982 and lives in Pniewy.   On 4 December 1997 he was arrested at home and taken to the police station for questioning in connection with the murder of M.S., a 12-year-old boy whose body had been found that day near the block where he lived.   Mr Adamkiewicz was questioned for about five hours, during which he first denied any involvement in the murder and later admitted to strangling M.S. with a rope.   Mr Adamkiewicz was brought before a family-affairs judge, who decided to place him in a children’s home for the duration of the proceedings and also assigned him a defence lawyer. The latter made three unsuccessful requests to meet his client.   On 23 December 1997 the family-affairs judge questioned the applicant in the absence of his lawyer. Mr Adamkiewicz maintained his initial statements.   On 18 January 1998 – some six weeks after his arrest – the applicant had his first meeting with his defence lawyer at the children’s home. During that meeting the lawyer informed him of his right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself.   The applicant was examined on two further occasions by the family-affairs judge in the absence of his lawyer. He maintained his earlier statements on the first occasion and refused to answer questions during the second.   The lawyer made two further attempts to see his client, the first of which failed as he refused to meet Mr Adamkiewicz in the presence of a judge, and the second of which was refused on grounds of a formal error.   On 29 October 1998 the children’s court found Mr Adamkiewicz guilty of the offence and ordered his placement in a reformatory for six years. It found that, despite exercising his right to remain silent, the applicant had admitted committing the offence during his interviews with the police and the family-affairs judge, which had been properly conducted.   In December 1998 the lawyer sought to have the judgment set aside on grounds of major procedural flaws in the case. He referred to the restrictions placed on his right to communicate freely with his client, non-compliance with statutory safeguards for minors and the fact that the judgment had been based on unlawfully obtained evidence.   His appeal was dismissed on 26 March 1999. Whilst acknowledging irregularities regarding the rights of the defence, the court held that these had not had a decisive effect on the content of the judgment. It also held that even if the applicant’s statements to the police should not have been admitted as they had not been duly recorded in a transcript, the court was not required to set aside the judgment having regard to the other evidence adduced (subsequent statements by the applicant before the family-affairs judge, supported by other evidence such as eyewitness and expert testimonies).   On 9 September 1999 an appeal by the applicant to the Court of Cassation was dismissed.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6, the applicant complained of the restrictions placed on the exercise of his defence rights during the investigation and of the fact that the statements he had made then to the police had been admitted at the trial. He also complained that the judge who had directed the disputed investigation had also sat on the bench that examined his case.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 9 November 1999.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom), President, Lech Garlicki (Poland), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia-Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ján Šikuta (Slovakia), Nebojša Vučinić (Montenegro), Judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   The Court reiterated the rule that where the case concerned a minor, the courts were required to act in accordance with the principle that the best interests of the child should be protected, having regard to his or her age, level of maturity and intellectual and emotional capacities, and taking steps to promote the child’s ability to participate in the proceedings.   The applicant had not been informed by his lawyer of his right to remain silent until six weeks after the proceedings had begun and he had been placed in a children’s home, after several unsuccessful attempts by his lawyer to meet him. The authorities had therefore obtained his incriminating admissions before he had even been informed of that right. Given his age, it could not be asserted that Mr Adamkiewicz knew of his right to seek legal representation and of the consequences of his failure to do so, whereas it was crucial for him, isolated in a children’s home as he had been during the decisive period of the investigation, to have broad access to a lawyer from the very beginning of the proceedings.   The Court therefore held that the considerable restrictions on the applicant’s defence rights had amounted to a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1.   Regarding the impartiality of the children’s court, it was not disputed that the issue on which the family-affairs judge had ruled during the investigation coincided in large measure with the question on which he had subsequently had to rule as president of the trial bench. During the investigation he had made broad use of the extensive powers available to him under the Procedure Act applicable to minors, ordering of his own motion the opening of the proceedings and directing the evidence-gathering operations following which he had decided to commit the applicant for trial.   Whilst it was not the Court’s task to rule on domestic legislation and practice in the necessarily specific area of juvenile justice, it examined the manner in which these had been applied to Mr Adamkiewicz. In that context it did not see how the same judge’s presence on the trial bench could contribute to ensuring maximum protection of the best interests of the child that the applicant had then been.   The Court accordingly concluded that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held that Poland should pay the applicant 10,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage.     ***     The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.