CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 15 novembre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4060989B { margin-left:10.52pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   856   15.11.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF IWAŃCZUK v. POLAND   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing judgment in the case of Iwańczuk v. Poland (no. 25196/94) (which is not final [1] ).   The Court held: by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), and unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 30,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) for non-pecuniary damage and PLN 14,400 for legal costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Krzysztof Iwańczuk, a Polish national, was born in 1962 and lives in Brzeg, Poland.   In May 1991 he was arrested and detained on suspicion of attempted theft and, on 18 December 1992, charged with misappropriation. His detention was prolonged numerous times and his appeals against these decisions were dismissed.   On 19 September 1993 he asked for permission to vote in parliamentary elections, as there were voting facilities for detainees in Wrocław Prison, where he was being held. He was taken to the guards’ room, where he was told by a group of four guards that, to be allowed to vote, he would have to undress and undergo a body search. The applicant took off his clothes except his underwear, at which point the prison guards ridiculed him, exchanged humiliating remarks about his body and abused him verbally. He was ordered to strip naked, but refused to do so and was then taken back to his cell without being allowed to vote.   Wrocław Regional Court decided to release the applicant on bail on 21 December 1993, fixing bail at 2,000 million (old) zlotys, a decision which was upheld by the Court of Appeal, which found there was no impediment to the applicant’s bail being deposited in bonds or as a mortgage on his property. On 18 January 1994 the Regional Court reduced his bail to 1,500 million old zlotys. The applicant requested that bail be accepted in the form of a mortgage, and enclosed an expert estimate of his property. Several other decisions ensued, in which the amount and form of the bail to be deposited were changed. Finally, in April, 100 million old zlotys in cash and 750 million in the form of a mortgage were accepted as bail. The applicant was released on 5 May 1994, after his bail was deposited, four months and 14 days after the decision to release him was taken.   The proceedings against him have so far lasted approximately eight-and-a-half years and are still pending.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 26 April 1994 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared partly admissible on 9 November 2000.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Georg Ress (German), President , Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), Lucius Caflisch [2] (Swiss), Jerzy Makarczyk (Polish), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), judges ,   and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   The applicant complained, relying on Article 3, that he was subjected to humiliating treatment by the prison guards. He further complained, under Article 5 § 3, about the length of his detention, and, under Article 6 § 1, about the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court found that it was doubtful whether the exercise of the right to vote in parliamentary elections by persons detained on remand should be subject to any special conditions other than those dictated by the normal requirements of prison security. In any event, the Court did not accept that it was justified that such conditions should include an order to strip naked in front of a group of prison guards.   The Court further considered, given the applicant’s personality, his peaceful behaviour during the entire period of his detention, the fact that he was not charged with a violent crime and that he had no previous criminal record, that it had not been shown that there were reasons to fear that he would behave violently. In the light of the applicant’s personality and all the other circumstances of the case, no compelling reasons had been adduced to find that the order to strip naked before the prison guards was necessary and justified for security reasons.   In addition, while strip searches might be necessary on occasions to ensure prison security or prevent disorder in prisons, they had to be conducted in an appropriate manner. The prison guards verbally abused and derided the applicant; behaviour intended to provoke feelings of humiliation and inferiority, which, in the Court’s view, showed a lack of respect for his human dignity. Given the lack of persuasive justification for the treatment of the applicant and that he had wished to exercise his right to vote within the framework of arrangements specially provided for detainees, the Court found that the behaviour which humiliated and debased him amounted to degrading treatment, in violation of Article   3.   Article 5 § 3   The Court observed that although the authorities had found as early as December 1993 that the applicant’s release would not jeopardise the proceedings, he was released only in May 1994.     In view of the fact that the proceedings relating to the amount and the methods of payment   lasted as long as four months and 14 days, while the applicant remained in detention, after the decision had been taken that his further detention was unnecessary, and that no adequate reasons were forwarded by the authorities to justify successive changes of decisions concerning the form in which bail was to be deposited, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   Article 6 § 1   The Court accepted that the proceedings were of a certain complexity, having regard to the scope of the criminal case. As regarded the conduct of the applicant, however, it had not been shown that he contributed to the length of the proceedings. As to the conduct of the authorities, the Court noted that, on 17   November 1999, the composition of the Court was changed and that, consequently, the hearings had to be reconvened, despite the fact that 71 hearings had already been held in the case.   The Court found that the overall duration of the proceedings concerning the applicant’s case could not be regarded as reasonable and that, accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 6 §1   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [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] .     Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.