003-2240099-2399148

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   22.1.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Poland and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following ten Chamber judgments, none of which are final[1]. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Repetitive cases[2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.   No violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 8 Bobel v. Poland (application no. 20138/03)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Kurczewski v. Poland (no. 18157/04) Pisarkiewicz v. Poland (no. 18967/02)   No violation of Article 5 § 3 Teodorski v. Poland (no. 7033/06) The applicants are four Polish nationals who live in Poland. Piotr Bobel was born in 1972 and lives in Olsztyn; Paweł Kurczewski was born in 1979 and lives in Gdańsk; Dariusz Pisakiewicz was born in 1957 and lived in Łódź; and, Leszek Teodorski was born in 1974 and lives in Warsaw.   The cases concerned the applicants’ complaints that the length of their pre-trial detention had been excessive. In the case of Bobel, the applicant also complained that, while he was detained, his correspondence was censored on several occasions.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights in the cases of Kurczewski and Pisarkiewicz. Mr Kurczewski did not submit a claim for just satisfaction or costs and expenses. Following the death of Mr Pisakiewicz, the Court awarded his partner 1,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in the cases of Bobel and Teodorski. In the case of Bobel, it further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and awarded the applicant EUR 500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Goodwin v. the United Kingdom (no. 65723/01) Higham v. the United Kingdom (no. 64735/01) The above two cases concerned the applicants’ complaints under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (protection of property) that, as widowers, they had been refused Widow’s Bereavement Allowance or its equivalent.   Struck out Herbert v. the United Kingdom (no. 62868/00) The above case concerned the applicant’s complaint under Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that, because he was a man, he had been denied social security benefits equivalent to those received by widows. An agreement was reached between the parties concerning Widowed Mother's Allowance, in which Mr Herbert was awarded 11,368.14 pounds sterling (GBP) (EUR 15,313.61). Today the Court decided to strike out the application, as the applicant no longer wished to proceed with his remaining complaint.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The Court held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) in the case of Rygalski.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Czaus v. Poland (no. 18026/03) Madeła v. Poland (no. 62424/00) Rygalski v. Poland (no. 11101/04)     ***   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. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.