003-5257692-6528018

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 400 (2015)   17.12.2015   Judgments and decisions of 17 December 2015   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing five judgments1 and 34 decisions2:   two Chamber judgments are summarised listed below;   three Committee judgments, which concern issues which have already been submitted to the Court,   and the 34 decisions can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments below are available only in English.   Kristiansen v. Norway (application no. 1176/10)   The applicant, Jørgen Kristiansen, is a Norwegian national who was born in 1984 and lives in   Borgenhaugen (Norway). The case concerned his complaint that criminal proceedings against him   had been unfair due to the participation of a juror who lacked impartiality.   In September 2008 Mr Kristiansen was convicted of attempted rape. The judgment was upheld on   appeal by judgment of a High Court, which sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment on account of   this and other offences. It also ordered him to pay the victim the equivalent of 7,500 euros in   compensation for damages. The courts found that Mr Kristiansen, aged 23 at the time, had   attempted to rape a 17-year old girl, with whom he had left a party, in a car parked at a petrol   station.   During the proceedings before the High Court one of the jurors informed the presiding judge that   she had previously had contacts with the victim. Mr Kristiansen’s counsel thus requested that the   juror be disqualified from taking part in the proceedings for lack of impartiality. After deliberations   the court decided that the juror ought not to withdraw. It pointed out that a member of the jury   might be disqualified especially if he or she had particular reasons for identifying with the victim. It   observed, however, that the juror in Mr Kristiansen’s case had been in contact with the victim only   sporadically many years ago, concluding that her impression of the victim was not capable of   influencing the assessment in the criminal case. Consequently the juror continued to take part in the   trial before the High Court.   Mr Kristiansen’s appeal against the High Court’s judgment, complaining about the juror’s   participation, was rejected by the Supreme Court in June 2009.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights,   Mr Kristiansen complained that the juror’s participation had made his trial unfair.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: 4,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,500 (costs and expenses)   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber   judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a   panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and   deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the   Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   Committee judgments, as well as inadmissibility and strike-out decisions, are final.   Sobko v. Ukraine (no. 15102/10)   The applicant, Oleksandr Sobko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1981 and is currently in   prison. The case concerned his complaint that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair,   in particular on account of not having had access to a lawyer during his questioning by the police.   After his four-year old stepson was found dead on 3 October 2008, Mr Sobko was questioned by the   police in the absence of a lawyer, following which he wrote a statement in which he explained that   he had strangled the boy. When questioned as an accused two days later in the presence of a legal   aid lawyer, he maintained his confession. Being represented by a different lawyer, he retracted his   confession when questioned as an accused in February 2009, claiming his innocence. He maintained   that he had incriminated himself under physical and psychological coercion by the police. The   prosecutor subsequently refused to open a criminal case in respect of the allegation that Mr Sobko   had been coerced by the police, finding that there was no indication of a criminal offence.   In May 2009 Mr Sobko was convicted of murder of the child and sentenced to 12 years’   imprisonment. The trial court relied in particular on his statement of 3 October 2008 and the   subsequent confessions he had maintained until February 2009. On appeal by Mr Sobko, the   Supreme Court held a hearing in his and his lawyer’s absence. It upheld the judgment of the   first-instance court.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial and right to legal assistance of one’s own   choosing) of the European Convention, Mr Sobko complained that the lack of access to a lawyer   during his initial police questioning and the fact that the appeal hearing had taken place in his and   his lawyer’s absence had made his trial unfair.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 taken together with Article 6 § 3 (c) – on account of the initial restriction   on the right to legal defence   No violation of Article 6 – on account of the inability to participate in the hearing before the   Supreme Court   Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   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 or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_Press.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   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.   2