003-1930612-2027964

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   27.2.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Slovakia and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments, none of which are final.[1]   One repetitive case[2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.   Maciej v. Poland (application no. 10838/02)          Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Tadeusz Maciej, is a Polish national who was born in 1949 and lives in Radom (Poland).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained about the length and fairness of court proceedings which led to his conviction on 25 October 1999 for benefiting from prostitution.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Nowicki v. Poland (no. 6390/03)  Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Andrzej Bogusław Nowicki, is a Polish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Goleniów (Poland).   The application concerned two sets of criminal proceedings brought against Mr Nowicki: the first for attempted burglary for which he was convicted in November 2000 and sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment; and the second, for the sale of stolen goods, for which he was also convicted in March 2004 and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.   Mr Nowicki relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security). However, the Court also examined the application under Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence), given that, the envelope of a letter it had received from Mr Nowicki writing from the Szczecin Detention Centre, had been opened and resealed with adhesive tape and stamped “censored” and “Szczecin Detention Centre”.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8, declared the remainder of the complaint inadmissible and dismissed the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 4 Nešťák v. Slovakia (no. 65559/01) Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 (fairness) and 2 The applicant, Filip Nešťák, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Moravské Lieskové (Slovakia).   In October 2000 Mr Nešťák was convicted for the armed robbery of a gambling house in Liptovský Mikuláš and sentenced to five-and-a-half years’ imprisonment, later reduced to five years.   Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Mr Nešťák complained that his detention on remand was unlawful and arbitrary, and that, except for certain decisions, his continuing detention was decided upon in private sessions attended only by the public prosecutor. He further relied on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence), claiming that the regional court’s judges involved in his case were biased, and on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 concerning the proceedings by which the applicant sought to have the lawfulness of his detention decided. It also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of impartiality of the court which convicted him, and that there was no need to examine the complaint concerning the alleged procedural unfairness. The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 2 concerning the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.   The Court awarded Mr Nešťák EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive case   In the following case the Court has reached the same finding as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:   Moldovahidromaş v. Moldova (no. 30475/03)Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Moldovahidromaş, is a Moldovan company registered in Chişinău.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant company alleged that its right to a fair hearing and its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions had been breached as a result of the quashing of the final judgment given in its favour on 23 October 1992.   The Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and, unanimously, that the question of the application of Article 41 was not ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in English.)       Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.    Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Pepszolg KFT. (“v.a.”) v. Hungary (no. 6690/02) Tüketici Bilincini Geliştirme Derneği v. Turkey (no. 38891/03)   ***   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).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   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.   [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] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.