003-4132979-4871478

WyrokETPCz2012-10-25

Analiza orzeczenia

Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.

Zagadnienie prawne

Czy brak dostępu do postępowania sądowego w celu szybkiego rozstrzygnięcia o legalności zatrzymania naruszył prawo do wolności i bezpieczeństwa osobistego (art. 5 ust. 4 Konwencji)?

Ratio decidendi

Trybunał stwierdził naruszenie art. 5 § 4 Konwencji, co oznacza, że uznał, iż skarżącemu odmówiono prawa do szybkiego rozstrzygnięcia przez sąd o legalności jego zatrzymania. Brak dostępu do takich procedur sądowych, w których można by było zarządzić jego zwolnienie, stanowił naruszenie tego przepisu.

Stan faktyczny

Artur Buishvili, obywatel Gruzji urodzony w 1975 r., został przeniesiony do Czech z Holandii w marcu 2011 r. w ramach procedury Dublin II i ubiegał się o azyl. Odmówiono mu wjazdu i pozostał w ośrodku recepcyjnym na lotnisku w Pradze. W czerwcu 2011 r. zezwolono mu na wjazd w celu leczenia wirusowego zapalenia wątroby typu C.

Rozstrzygnięcie

Stwierdza naruszenie art. 5 § 4 Konwencji. Zasądza 3 000 EUR tytułem zadośćuczynienia za szkodę niemajątkową.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 395 (2012) 25.10.2012 Judgments concerning the Czech Republic and Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two judgments, which are not final. The judgments are available only in English. Buishvili v. the Czech Republic (application no. 30241/11) The applicant, Artur Buishvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1975 and is currently an asylum seeker in the Czech Republic. He was transferred to the Czech Republic from the Netherlands under the Dublin II procedure1 in March 2011 and claimed asylum. He was refused entry and remained in the reception centre at Prague airport. He was eventually granted entry in June 2011 so that he could have medical treatment for Hepatitis C. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) of the Convention, he complained that he had had no access to judicial proceedings in which his release could have been ordered. Violation of Article 5 § 4 Just satisfaction: 3,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) Štefančič v. Slovenia (no. 18027/05) The applicant, Branimir Štefančič, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Škofja Loka (Slovenia). In May 2000 he was convicted and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment for international drug trafficking. The case concerned in particular his allegation that his criminal trial had been unfair as he had been convicted on the basis of a statement made by a witness in London whom he had not had the opportunity to have cross-examined in court. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article § 3 (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses). No violation of Article 6 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (d) This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en. Press contacts [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08 Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79) Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) 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. A European Union regulation under which member States are required to determine, based on a hierarchy of objective criteria, which member State is responsible for examining an asylum application lodged on their territory.