CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 25 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2A2A3254 { width:98.13pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s33141CA1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB4D5CB4E { width:4.94pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     331   25.6.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT CONCERNING Poland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following Chamber judgment, which is not final: [1]   Section 4   Migoń v. Poland (application no. 24244/94)   Violation Article 5 § 4 The case concerns the detention on remand of the applicant - Wiltold Migoń, a Polish national - during criminal proceedings brought against him on suspicion of aggravated fraud, falsification of documents and issuing bad cheques.   He alleged, in particular, that the proceedings to review his detention were not adversarial and that neither he nor his counsel had been allowed to attend hearings before Kraków Court of Appeal concerning the prolongation of his detention on remand, whereas the prosecutor had been able to do so. The applicant also complained that, in those proceedings, neither he nor his counsel had been granted adequate access to the case-file of the investigation. He relied on Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 and, by six votes to one, that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage. It awarded the applicant 10,000 Polish zlotys for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. The text of the Court’s judgment is   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.