CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 20 janvier 2004

.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 } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s9AF785DF { width:50.79pt; display:inline-block } .sAD033D0D { width:276.22pt; display:inline-block } .s4715602C { width:151.5pt; display:inline-block } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s6F57788 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s91F6AE57 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5CD2CEB5 { width:256.2pt; display:inline-block } .s3449851A { width:298.24pt; display:inline-block } .s83E36723 { width:174.85pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s1D615842 { width:136.81pt; 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   027 20.1.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, Poland and Slovakia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1] (All four are available only in English.)       Violation of Article 6 § 1 Kangsaluoma v. Finland (application no. 48339/99)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Matti Kangasluoma is a Finnish national who was born in 1949 and lives in Lapua (Finland).   He complained under Article 6 (right to a trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention of Human Rights of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him, which lasted approximately seven years and four months. He also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 3,000   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 400 for costs and expenses.       Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 D.P. v. Poland (no. 34221/96)   No violation of Article 34 The applicant, D.P., is a Polish national, born in 1965 and living in Opole (Poland).   The applicant alleged that his pre-trial detention following his arrest for alleged fraud was in breach of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security). He also complained about the length of his pre-trial detention, which lasted about two years and nine months, relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge). He further maintained that the opening of his letter to the European Court of Human Rights by the Polish authorities was in breach of Article 34 (right of individual applications). Noting that it was undisputed that the applicant’s detention from 1 to 24 January 1997 was unlawful, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1. The Court considered that the applicant’s detention was initially justified by a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence with which he was charged. However, none of the decisions rejecting applications for release lodged after 24   January 1997 were based on “relevant” or “sufficient” grounds. There had therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 3. The Court noted that the applicant’s letter was delivered without delay and that there was no interference with its content; he had not, therefore, been hindered in the exercise of his right of petition to the Court. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 34. The applicant was awarded EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage.     Violation of Article 5 §§§ 1, 3 and 4   No Violation of Article 6 § 1 G.K. v. Poland (no. 38816/97)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, G.K., is a Polish national, born in 1967 and living in Wroclaw (Poland).   He was arrested in March 1995 for fraud. He complained under Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) that his detention from 1 to 24 January 1997 was unlawful and that his pre-trial detention, which lasted three years and 17 days, was in breach of Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge). He further complained that he had no legal means to challenge his detention, relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) and about the length of his trial, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a trial within a reasonable time), which lasted at least four years and 11 months. The applicant further maintained that the censorship of his letter to the European Court of Human Rights was in breach of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and Article 34 (right of individual applications).   Noting that it was undisputed that the applicant’s detention from 1 to 24 January 1997 was unlawful, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1. The Court also held, unanimously, that the length of his detention was not justified, in violation of Article 5 § 3.   The Court further observed that Polish legislation did not, at that time, guarantee that an application would be examined in a procedure ensuring the principle of equality of arms; a detainee had no right to participate in court sessions concerning his detention on remand. Consequently, the applicant could not have had the lawfulness of his detention examined in a procedure satisfying the requirements of Article 5 § 4. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   The Court noted that there was, however, a specific statutory prohibition on censoring, or otherwise mishandling, correspondence from convicted prisoners to “institutions set up by international treaties ratified by the Republic of Poland concerning the protection of human rights”, laid down in Article 103 § 1 of the 1997 Code. Since the authorities had acted against that clear legal prohibition, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8. The Court also held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 34.   Finding no unreasonable delay in the proceedings, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.   The applicant was awarded EUR 5,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses (less the EUR 830 received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe).   König v. Slovakia (no. 39753/98)   Violation of Article 5 § 4 The applicant, Erich König, is a Slovakian national, born in 1970, who is currently serving a prison sentence in Ilava Prison for murder and for the unauthorised carrying of a weapon.   Relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), he complained that the Slovakian authorities failed to decide on his application for release from detention.   The Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4, concerning Mr König’s detention from 24 February 1997 to 2 July 1997, and awarded him EUR 200 for costs and expenses (in addition to the EUR 355 received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe).   ***   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.