CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 février 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 } .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 } .s10C707DC { width:13.25pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF5D6692F { width:4.58pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     116   22.2.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING POLAND   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments [1] (the judgments are available only in English):   SECTION 4   (1)     Kurzac v. Poland (no. 31382/96)              Violation Article 6 § 1 On 3 September 1993 the applicant, Władysław Kurzac, a Polish national, lodged an application (under the law of 23 February 1991 on the annulment of convictions for activities aimed at achieving Polish independence) to have annulled his brother’s conviction of 10 February 1948. His brother, who was shot dead by a militia officer on 7 August 1956, had been convicted in connection with, among other things, his membership of the illegal organisation, the National Armed Forces (Narodowe Siły Zbrojne ), popularly known as the NSZ. The applicant complained that the proceedings, which lasted four years and nine months, were unreasonably long.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded the applicant 20,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) for non-pecuniary damage and PLN 10,000 for costs and expenses, less 6,804 French francs received as legal aid from the Council of Europe.   (2)     Szeloch v. Poland (no. 33079/96)         Violation Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 Zefiryn Szeloch, a Polish national, complained that both his detention on remand, which lasted four years, three months and nine days and the length of criminal proceedings against him (seven years, two months and 29 days) exceeded a reasonable time.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of manslaughter and several counts of sexual abuse against children and that the suspicion was based on evidence collected in the investigations [2] . However, taking into account three years, seven months and 16 days [3] , the Court found that the length of the applicant’s detention was excessive. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to stand trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial).   In relation to the criminal proceedings against the applicant, the Court considered that the case was complex and serious and accepted that certain difficulties and particular care might have been involved in the taking of the evidence, as the presumed victims of the sexual abuse were minors. The Court also noted that the charges called for an in-depth psychiatric examination of the applicant and that the Regional Court heard evidence from 54 witnesses including 15 experts. However, the principal reason for the prolongation of the proceedings was the substantial delay in the preparation of expert opinions after 16 January 1996.   Taking into account six years, seven months and six days [4] , the Court found that the length of the criminal proceedings was excessive and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). The Court further held, unanimously, that the judgment constituted sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.   ***   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] On 16 December 1996, the applicant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 14-year’s imprisonment. He was acquitted of the other charges against him. [3] From 1 May 1993, when Poland recognised the right of individual petition. [4] From 1 May 1993, when Poland recognised the right of individual petition.