CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 15 novembre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sDB64876 { width:131.48pt; display:inline-block } .s6BE65F42 { width:116.14pt; display:inline-block } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; display:inline-block } .sA59F50BD { width:140.81pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     855   15.11.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Croatia, Poland and Slovakia     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments of which only Werner v. Poland is final [1] :   SECTION 2   (1)     Nemec and others v. Slovakia (application no. 48672/99) Violation Article 6 § 1 Eight Slovakian nationals complained about the excessive length of the proceedings (lasting more than 11 years and three months, of which the Court can take into consideration nine years and seven months [2] ) concerning their copyright action.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded each applicant 100,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) for non-pecuniary damage and a global sum of SKK 15,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   SECTION 4   (2)     Werner v. Poland (no. 26760/95)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Mikolaj Werner, a Polish national, complained about not having access to an impartial court to challenge the decision to dismiss him from the function of liquidator of an insolvent company.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)         (3)     Olstowski v. Poland (no. 34052/96)   Violation Article 5 § 3   Violation Article 6 § 1 Artur Olstowski, a Polish national, complained about the length of his pre-trial detention, which lasted almost three years and three months. He further complained about the length of criminal proceedings against him, which were started on 14 December 1993 and are still pending.   The Court accepted that one of the witness statements in the case could have given rise to   legitimate concern about improper pressure put on witnesses. However, it was made almost 20 months before the end of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and could not alone justify its overall length.     The Government also submitted that the applicant’s detention was justified by the risk of repetition of the offences. However, the Court was not convinced that, if such a ground had been taken into account by the courts, it could justify the length of the applicant’s detention.   The Court accordingly considered that the grounds for his detention were not “relevant” and “sufficient”.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and also of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant PLN 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (4)     Cerin v. Croatia (no. 54727/00)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Čedomil Cerin, a Croatian national, complained about the length of civil proceedings instituted by him for payment of damages regarding his apartment in Zagreb, which have so far lasted more than 17 years, of which three years and 11 months can be taken into consideration by the Court [3] .   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 30,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) for non-pecuniary damage and HRK 2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     ***   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] From 18 March 1992, when the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic ratified the European Convention on Human Rights   and recognised the right of individual petition. [3] From 5 November 1997, when the European Convention on Human Rights entered into force in Croatia.