CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 18 juin 2002

.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 } .sF66F5421 { width:31.43pt; display:inline-block } .s2C0DFE81 { width:144.22pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8186A7B8 { width:101.46pt; display:inline-block } .s9C367867 { width:130.79pt; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     317   18.6.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Poland, the Netherlands and France   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments. Wierzbicki v. Poland and Samy v. the Netherlands are final [1] .   Former Section 1   (1)     Wierzbicki v. Poland (application no. 24541/94)   No violation Article 6 § 1     No jurisdiction to consider complaint under Article 10 Piotr Wierzbicki, a Polish national, was the editor-in-chief of the newspaper Gazeta Polska. In June 1992 the newspaper published a list of alleged informants of the communist secret police which had been submitted to Parliament by the Minister of Internal Affairs, following a resolution by Parliament. It was originally meant to remain strictly confidential, but its content was subsequently leaked to the public. At a later date, the newspaper also published the names of certain people, including that of S.N., which had allegedly been deleted from the list at the last moment by the Ministry for lack of conclusive evidence.   On 30 June 1993 S. N., who was also a parliamentary candidate in elections scheduled for September 1993, brought a court action against the applicant claiming the information was false. The applicant, in reply, asked the court to call as witnesses the former and current Ministers of Internal Affairs and a well-known politician, and to request the Ministry to submit various documents in evidence.   On 25 August 1993 Łódź Regional Court upheld the plaintiff’s claim and ordered the applicant to publicly retract his statements by placing relevant announcements in various newspapers. The court indicated that it had requested the Ministry of Internal Affairs to produce the documents requested by the applicant, but that the Ministry had refused to do so as the documents were privileged from disclosure under official secrecy rules and could only be produced in court in criminal proceedings. The court observed that it could not hear   evidence from the witnesses called by the applicant: they could only have given evidence as to whether the plaintiff had been included in the list of informants as prepared by the Ministry in June 1992, but not as to whether he had in fact been an informant. Moreover, in view of their serious nature, the allegations in the applicant’s newspaper could not be established by mere oral testimony uncorroborrated by documentary evidence.   The applicant appealed against that decision, relying, among other things, on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair hearing). He argued that, as all his requests to call witnesses and evidence had been refused, he had been denied a reasonable opportunity to argue his case.   On 31 August 1993   Łódź Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It noted that the mere fact that an individual’s name had been included in the list prepared by the Ministry in June 1992 did not prove that the person had in fact been an informant. The court emphasised that the veracity of information contained in the list had been repeatedly challenged both by interested parties and, more widely, in numerous press articles. It had been stressed that the list had been prepared and used as a weapon in a political battle, intended to discredit those concerned. Therefore, the court considered that the veracity of a claim that a particular person had been an informant of the secret police under the communist regime could not possibly be established solely on the basis of the impugned list itself, and, in particular, without some legally-established means whereby the rights of those branded police informants could be defended. The court accordingly considered that the burden of proof lay with the applicant, who had failed to demonstrate that, at the time of the publication of the information, he had possessed sufficient evidence that the plaintiff had been an informant.   The applicant complained that the domestic courts interfered with his right to freedom of expression, under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He also relied on Article 6 § 1.   The European Court of Human Rights held by six votes to one that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It held, unanimously, that it had no jurisdiction to consider the applicant’s complaint under Article 10 because, at the admissibility stage of the proceedings, the applicant, who was represented by lawyers, never raised even the substance of a complaint under Article 10. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Section 2   (2)     Samy v. the Netherlands (no. 36499/97)   Friendly settlement The applicant, who currently lives in the Netherlands, states that his name is Ali Samy and that he is an Algerian national, who was born in 1968 in Algiers.   On 27 August 1996, following his arrest and detention on suspicion of theft where, during the criminal investigation it appeared likely that he was an illegal alien, the applicant was placed in an aliens’ detention centre pending his expulsion. The applicant’s lawyer filed several unsucessful requests for the applicant’s release – one lodged   on 29   November 1996 was rejected on 22 January 1997. On 7 March 1997 the applicant was released from detention   because there was no real prospect of expelling him at that time because his origins could not be established. The applicant complained, among other things, relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security), that one of his four requests for release from detention for expulsion purposes was not determined “speedily”.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 3,000 euros (EUR) is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Section 4   (3)     Delbec v. France (no. 43125/98)   Violation Article 5 § 4 Annick Delbec is a French national. She was born in 1954 and lives in Colmar. She was taken into police custody on 8 April 1998 for having verbally threatened an investigating judge and on the same day was compulsorily committed to a psychiatric institution pursuant to a municipal order issued by the mayor of Colmar, which was confirmed by a prefectoral order on the same day. The applicant lodged an application with the civil courts for her release, which arrived at the tribunal de grande instance on 21 April 1998, and at the same time lodged an application on 20 April 1998 with the administrative courts to have the committal orders set aside. As Mrs Delbec had made complaints about the president of the tribunal , another judge was appointed to determine her application on 4 May 1998. While she was on trial release from 20 May 1998, the judge dealing with the case made an order on 4   August 1998 discharging her from the psychiatric institution. His decision was based on, among other things, the conclusions of a psychiatrist’s report he had ordered. The administrative proceedings ended on 17 September 1998 with the dismissal of the applicant’s application.   Relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained that four months had elapsed before her release from the psychiatric institution was ordered.   The Court noted that only the civil courts had jurisdiction to determine whether valid medical grounds existed for the hospital order and whether the applicant should be released and that the applicant had only been released on trial one month after the court had received her application. It noted that the practice in such cases, in which applications are made to the urgent-applications judge, is to order a psychiatric report. However, the order for a psychiatric report was not made until 8 June 1998, by which time Mrs Delbec had already been released, while the final decision to order her release waa taken only on 4 August. The Court noted that the purpose of the proceedings was to allow a rapid decision regarding the hospital order and thus the applicant’s liberty, but the judge had failed to give a decision as quickly as possible.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 and awarded the applicant 3,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   *** 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 ).   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.