CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 3 décembre 2002

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA3022B31 { margin-left:10.52pt; padding-left:17.83pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     613   3.12.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF NOWICKA v. POLAND   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Nowicka v. Poland (application no. 30218/96). The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights and; a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Dobrochna Nowicka, is an Polish national, who was born in 1940 and lives in Łódź, Poland.   She inherited a 25% share in an apartment building and a plot of land in Łódź and, on 18   October 1990, was appointed administrator of the property. Subsequently, she asked the previous administrator of the property to stop collecting rent from tenants living in the apartment building, which it refused to do. She also challenged the right of Mr H.D. to collect rent from tenants leasing business premises in the building.   On 8 March 1994, Mr H.D brought a private prosecution for criminal libel against Ms Nowicka on the ground that she had informed a bank that he had obtained a loan from the bank under false pretences and had been repaying it from income obtained from her property.   During the trial against Ms Nowicka before Łódź District Court, the court requested information about her background and mental health. As she failed to attend two psychiatric examinations ordered by the court, the court decided that she should be arrested and detained on remand in order to secure her compliance. On 25 October 1994 she was arrested and transferred to Łódź Prison No. 1.     On 2 November 1994 the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination. The psychiatrists who examined her concluded that they could not make a diagnosis based on a single examination. On 3 November 1994 she was released from detention.       On 8 November 1994 Łódź District Court decided that the applicant should undergo a psychiatric examination in a medical establishment. The applicant again failed to attend. On 23 March 1995 she was arrested and transferred to prison the next day. In response to a request for visiting rights from the applicant’s daughter, the District Court ruled that the applicant was allowed one visit a month.   Between 19 April and 26 May 1995 the applicant underwent a further psychiatric examination. The medical report concluded that her intellectual ability was substantially above average and that she showed no signs of being either mentally ill or retarded. The opinion also stated that she had a paranoid personality and that she had understood what she was doing at the time when she committed the alleged offence.   On 3   June   1995 she was released from prison. Subsequently, Łódź District Court discontinued the criminal proceedings against her.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 15 November 1994 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared partly admissible on 16 October 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Wilhelmina Thomassen (Netherlands), Lech Garlicki (Polish), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained, in particular, of violations of Article 5 § 1 and Article 8 of the Convention.         Decision of the Court   Article 5 § 1 The Court observed that the applicant was initially detained for eight days before she was given an appointment with psychiatrists. Her examination was completed the same day. Her second examination was preceded by 28 days’ detention. The Court considered that both periods of pre-examination detention could not be reconciled with the authorities’ desire to secure the immediate fulfilment of the applicant’s obligation. Moreover, the “purely technical reasons” relied on by the Government in the context of the length of detention preceding the first examination could not justify holding the applicant in custody for eight days. Taking into account the duration of detention, the Court was of the view that the authorities failed to draw a balance between the importance of securing the immediate fulfilment of the obligation in question, and the importance of the right to liberty.   Regarding the applicant’s detention after her examinations, the Court observed that, although her first examination ended on 2   November   1994, she was held in custody overnight and was released only on 3 November 1994. The second examination ended on 26 May 1995, but she remained in detention for eight days until 3   June   1995. The   Government had failed to provide an explanation for the applicant’s post-examination detention. The Court further noted that applicant’s detention after 2   November 1994 and 26   May   1995 had no basis under Article 5 § 1 (b).     The Court concluded that the applicant’s detention, which lasted for a total period of 83 days and was imposed in the context of a private prosecution arising out of a neighbours’ dispute, was in breach of Article   5   § 1.   Article 8 The Court considered that the applicants’ complaints that the decisions to order her to undergo a psychiatric examination and to arrest her and her 83-day detention were in breach of Article 8 did not raise any separate issue not covered by the finding of a violation of Article   5   § 1.   Concerning restrictions on family visits, the Court observed that, although the detention itself could be considered to pursue the legitimate aims of the prevention of crime and the protection of health and the rights of others, the judge’s decision restricting the applicant’s visiting rights to one visit per month did not pursue, and was not proportionate to, any legitimate aim. The restriction was imposed on the applicant who was held in detention for 83 days in a case in which she did not contest the private prosecutor’s submissions on the facts of the case against her. Moreover, the Government had failed to show that it was justified.   Although the Court noted the Government’s submission that all applications for leave to visit the applicant lodged by the members of her family were allowed, after the decision restricting visiting rights had been made, the applicant’s family filed further applications only once a month. It appeared, therefore, that the family’s restraint in the number of applications lodged resulted from the judge’s decision concerning monthly visits. The Court concluded that the restriction on the applicant’s right to see members of her family to one visit per month while in detention did not pursue, and was not proportionate to, any legitimate aim, and was therefore in breach of Article 8.     ***   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: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (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] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.