CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 décembre 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 } .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 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s9AEBD78B { width:158.79pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s626CA315 { width:160.14pt; display:inline-block } .s747B77D2 { width:370.66pt; display:inline-block } .sE97CD8EF { width:329.98pt; display:inline-block } .s131AFC18 { width:348.91pt; display:inline-block } .sC0807AB4 { width:116.15pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; 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     614   2.12.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, of which only Stańczyk v. Poland is final. [1]   Violation Article 6 § 1 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 inadmissible Koktavá v. Czech Republic (application no. 45107/98)   The applicant, Růžena Koktavá, is a Czech national who was born in 1929 and lives in Sezimovo Ústí. Her parents owned agricultural land at Suchdol which they let to third parties.   In May 1950 the applicant’s father was imprisoned for political reasons, while the applicant and her mother were compelled to do forced labour. In August that year the tenants entered into an agreement with the National Real Estate Fund (Národní pozemkový fond) whereby they acquired the land. On 23 December 1992 the applicant brought an action for an order rescinding the agreement on the grounds that her parents had not given the Real Estate Fund a power of attorney to represent them or consented to the sale of their property. The Constitutional Court dismissed her claim on 10 January 2000.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights of the length of the proceedings. She also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions had been adversely affected by the length of the proceedings.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the proceedings had lasted seven years and 18 days for three levels of jurisdiction. It found that the applicant’s case had not been heard within a reasonable time and unanimously held that there had therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It declared unanimously that the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was inadmissible.   The Court awarded the applicant 1,700 euros (EUR) under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention for non-pecuniary damage.     Imre v. Hungary (no. 53129/99)   Violation Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Zsolt Imre, is a Hungarian national, born in 1968 and living in Budapest. He complained about the length of his detention on remand, which lasted two years, nine months and 26 days. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) of the Convention.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation 5 § 3   Violation Article 6 § 1   Violation Article 8 Matwiejczuk v. Poland (no. 37641/97)   No violation Article 34 The applicant, Tomasz Matwiejczuk, is a Polish national born in 1966. He is currently detained in Radom Prison (Poland).   He complained about the length of his pre-trial detention (lasting two years, seven months and 22 days), the length of the criminal proceedings against him (almost three years and two months) and that his letters, including correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights, were monitored during his detention. He relied on: Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and Article 34 (effective exercise of the right to file individual applications).   The Court noted that the monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence before 1 September 1998 was in breach of Article 8, as Polish law in force at that time did not clearly indicate the scope and manner of the discretion conferred on public authorities to control correspondence. In addition, the opening of a letter from the European Court of Human Rights to the applicant on 23 February 1999 – which had not taken place in the applicant’s presence – was also in breach of Article 8, not being in accordance with the law. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8.   Given this finding, the Court did not consider it necessary to examine the applicant’s claim that there was an interference with the exercise of his right of individual petition. The Court further found that the delivery of the applicants’ correspondence had not been delayed and that there had been no violation of Articles 8 or 34 in that respect.   Finding that both the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and the length of the proceedings against him were not reasonable, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1.   The applicant was awarded EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 less EUR 790 for costs and expenses. (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.