CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 avril 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 } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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 } 347 27.04.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Poland and   Slovakia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments. The judgment available only in French is indicated with an asterisk   (*).     Biełaj v. Poland (application no. 43643/04) The applicant, Jurij Biełaj, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Kyiv. Mr   Biełaj complained about the unfairness of criminal proceedings brought against him for armed robbery, notably that he had not been able to question two witnesses whose statements had been used as the basis for his conviction. He relied on Article   6   §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. No violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3   Friedensberg v. Poland (no. 44025/08) The applicant, Robert Friedensberg, is a Polish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Krasnystaw (Poland). The case concerned Mr Friedensberg’s complaint about censorship of his correspondence during his detention with regard to different sets of criminal proceedings against him, including robbery. He relied on Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence) of the Convention. Two violations of Article 8 Just satisfaction: 1,100 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Polanowski v. Poland (no. 16381/05) The applicant, Stanisław Polanowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Rzeszów (Poland). In December 2002 Mr Polanowski was arrested following a drunken fight with his wife and taken to a sobering-up centre. Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleged that he had been ill-treated by the police during his arrest and that the investigation into his allegations had been ineffective. Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,150 (costs and expenses)   Weber and Others v. Poland (no. 23039/02)* The applicants, Izabela Weber and her husband, Jan Weber, and their children, Mieczysław Weber and Janina Wajda, are Polish nationals who were born in 1928, 1918, 1949 and 1945 respectively and live in Stary Sącz (Poland). In 1999 their son and brother died in his flat in suspicious circumstances. Relying on Article   2 (right to life), the applicants complained of the lack of an effective, prompt and expeditious investigation which would have enabled them to determine the cause of their relative’s death and dispel the doubts regarding the circumstances surrounding it. Violation of Article 2 (investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000, jointly (non-pecuniary damage)   Hudáková and Others v. Slovakia (no. 23083/05) The applicants are three Slovakian nationals: Helena Hudáková who lives in Košice; Lea Bessenyeyová who lives in Malý Ruskov and Martin Sabó who lives in Milhosťov (Slovakia). They were born in 1956, 1977 and 1954 respectively. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complained about the unfairness of civil proceedings regarding a property dispute, in particular that on appeal written observations submitted by the plaintiffs had not been communicated to them. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: the finding of a violation sufficient     ***   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) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 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 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.