CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 16 septembre 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .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 } .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 } .s2B49DC01 { width:88.12pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEE705DC1 { width:108.12pt; display:inline-block } .s5F6275BC { width:131.49pt; display:inline-block } .sF9C0A319 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEE1EDB13 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sFF596A0C { width:10.57pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     447   16.9.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Poland, Romania and Sweden   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, none of which is final. [1]   (1)     B.R. v. Poland (application no. 43316/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Length of criminal proceedings   The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1960 and living in Warsaw. On 8 June 1994 he was charged with forcing a witness to withdraw her testimony in his divorce proceedings and on 20 June 1994 with domestic violence against his wife. The criminal proceedings are still continuing.   He complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention of Human Rights, that the length of the criminal proceedings in his case had exceeded a reasonable time.   The European Court of Human Rights considered that a total period of over nine years exceeded a reasonable time and held unanimously that there had accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It awarded the applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (2)     Skawińska v. Poland (no. 42096/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Length of criminal proceedings   The applicant, Mirosława Skawińska, is a Polish national, born in 1952 and living in Łódź.   On 8 December 1992 an investigation was opened against her for theft and obstruction of another’s use of certain property. She was ultimately acquitted by the Łódź District Court on 7 April 2000. The prosecution unsuccessfully appealed.   She complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention, that the length of the criminal proceedings against her had exceeded a reasonable time.   The Court considered that a total period of over seven years and five months had exceeded a reasonable time. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that it was not necessary to apply Article 41 (just satisfaction). (The judgment is available only in English.)   (3)     Glod v. Romania (no. 41134/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Domestic courts’ refusal to review the lawfulness of an administrative decision   The applicant, Florica Glod, is a Romanian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Bucharest. In 1991 she applied to the Commission for the application of the Land Act (Law no. 18/1991) seeking restitution of a 5.5 hectare plot of land which had belonged to her mother.   The Commission did not return the land but awarded her shares in a commercial company in exchange for it. Mrs Glod appealed against that decision to the Romanian courts; her appeal was dismissed on the ground that the courts were not empowered to review the way the Commission had chosen in practice to restore the applicant’s right of property. When the applicant lodged a new application for recovery of the property the Commission awarded her title to two plots of land. A dispute about the siting of that land is at present pending in the Romanian courts.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, the applicant complained of the Romanian courts’ refusal to review the lawfulness of a decision by the Administrative Commission. She further submitted that she had suffered interference with her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court noted that the Administrative Commission which had ruled on the applicant’s application for recovery of her property was constituted and directed by the provincial governor. It did not satisfy the requirement of independence vis-à-vis the executive power and did not constitute a “tribunal” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   Under the legislation applicable at the material time the Romanian courts were not empowered to review the lawfulness of the Commission’s decisions, and Mrs Glod had therefore been unable to submit its decision to the scrutiny of a judicial body having full jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court considered that the very essence of the right of access to a court had been impaired and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention. Having regard to that conclusion, the Court took the view that it was not necessary to rule on the complaint of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Mrs Glod EUR   4,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation Article 13 (4)     Stockholms Försäkrings- och Skadeståndsjuridik AB v. Sweden (no. 38993/97)   Applicant company’s liability to pay bankruptcy costs   The applicant, Stockholms Försäkrings- och Skadeståndsjuridik AB (formerly Stockholms Modegarn AB), is a Swedish limited liability company in Stockholm.   On 19 October 1995 it was declared bankrupt, but that declaration was ultimately quashed by the Supreme Court on 12 September 1996. However, the applicant company’s net assets (Swedish kronor 1,597 (approximately EUR   172)) were subsequently appropriated to cover part of the official receiver’s fee and it was unable to challenge that measure before the courts.   The applicant company complained of a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right of property) to the Convention on account of its liability to pay part of the receiver’s fee; a breach of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) because there had been no court determination of that liability; and a breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in that it had had no effective remedy for the determination of the violations of its rights under the Convention.   The Court found that, as the applicant company had been erroneously declared bankrupt, the obligation on it to pay part of the bankruptcy costs had been wholly unjustifiable. It concluded unanimously that the company had been deprived of its possessions pursuant to a clear rule of domestic law but that the deprivation, although of only a limited amount, had not been proportionate to the public interest in this case. Article 6 § 1 was unanimously held to be inapplicable, but the Court concluded that there had been a breach of Article 13 because the applicant company had had no remedy under Swedish law for its complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It was awarded EUR   200 for pecuniary damage and EUR   12,500 for costs, including VAT. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***     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 Press 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 by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [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.