CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 16 décembre 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s3EC2A282 { width:95.44pt; display:inline-block } .s8E6530DD { width:120.11pt; display:inline-block } .s2C64A79C { width:150.16pt; 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 } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   648 16.12.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Hungary and Poland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]     Pokorny v. Austria (application no. 57080/00)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Karl Pokorny, is an Austrian national who was born in 1946 and lives at Gerasdorf-Seyring (Austria). He was prosecuted for smuggling and alleged that the length of the proceedings was unreasonable, contrary to Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 6,800 euros (EUR) is to be paid for any non-pecuniary or pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Sesztackov v. Hungary (no. 59094/00)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Rezső Sesztakov, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Somlóvásárhely (Hungary). In 1993 his wife petitioned for divorce, which was granted in 1995. She was awarded custody of their child and the applicant was granted access. The applicant contested certain of the divorce court’s rulings.   He complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within the reasonable time) of the excessive length of his divorce proceedings, which lasted almost seven years and nine months. He claimed that he was denied a fair hearing and also alleged violations of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 8 (right to respect for family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and ruled the other complaints inadmissible. The applicant was awarded EUR 4,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)       Violation Article 6 § 1 Mianowski v. Poland (no. 42083/98)   Violation Article 8 The applicant, Eugeniusz Mianowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Bytom (Poland). In 1991 and 1992 he brought two sets of proceedings seeking compensation for damage he had sustained as a prisoner in Czarne Prison. He alleged that prison officers who had been called in to quell a riot had taken his belongings and that he had been assaulted when they stormed the building.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the length of the civil proceedings in question, which lasted, respectively, about eight years and two months (out of which the Court can take into consideration six years, eight months and 28 days [2] ) and 11 years and eight months (out of which the Court can take into consideration ten years and seven months). He also alleged that his correspondence with the Court had been monitored by the Polish authorities, in breach of Articles 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and 34 (right of individual petition).   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the applicant’s letters were not opened in his presence, in contravention of the relevant regulations concerning the censorship of detainees’ correspondence. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8. The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 34. The applicant was awarded EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (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. [2] From 1 May   1993, when Poland recognised the right to individual petition before the Court.