003-2117515-2245967

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   18.9.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar     Chamber judgments concerning Poland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, none of which are final.[1] (All three are available only in English.)     Nowak v. Poland (application no. 18390/02) No violation of Article 5 § 3    Violation of Article 5 § 3 Owczar v. Poland (no. 34117/02) Zenon Michalak v. Poland (no. 16864/02) The applicants are three Polish nationals who live in Brzeg (Poland). They were born in 1971, 1975 and 1968, respectively.   The cases concerned the applicants’ complaint about the excessive length of their detention on remand following their arrest in July and August 1999 on suspicion of, notably, repeated group rape with aggravated cruelty as members of an organised criminal gang. Mr Nowak was convicted of those charges on 31 July 2002 and sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment, later reduced to ten years and 8 months. Mr Owczar and Mr Michalak were also convicted on the same day and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. They were both released on bail in February 2003 when their application for appeal was still pending.   They relied, in particular, on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that, in the case of Nowak, the seriousness of the accusations against the applicant, charged with being the leader of the organised criminal gang, and the risk that he might abscond or exert pressure on witnesses, justified his having been held in custody for two years and seven months. Given the complexity of the case and the fact that there had been no significant periods of inactivity by the prosecuting authorities or the trial court – the former having completed the investigation relatively quickly and the latter having held many hearings – the Court considered that the domestic authorities had shown “special diligence” in handling the applicant’s case. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. However, in the cases of Owczar and Zenon Michalak, the Court found that the reasons given for the applicants’ continued detention – that is to say the risk that they might avoid trial or exert pressure on witnesses – had, with time, become less and less relevant and could not justify detaining them for more than three years. Furthermore, it had not been explained why the applicants’ release, which had finally been granted pending their appeal, had not been considered at an earlier stage in the proceedings. The Court therefore held unanimously that, in both cases, there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained. The remainder of the applications were declared inadmissible.   ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 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.   [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.