003-6375722-8355064

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 117 (2019)   04.04.2019   Judgments and decisions of 4 April 2019   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing three judgments1 and   decisions2:   one Chamber judgment is summarised below; separate press releases have been issued for two   other Chamber judgments in the cases of G.S. v. Bulgaria (application no. 36538/17) and Hodžić   v. Croatia (no. 28932/14),   a separate press release has also been issued for one decision, in the case of Szalontay v. Hungary   (no. 71327/13).   The 13 other decisions can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgment below is available only in English.   Kunert v. Poland (application no. 8981/14)   The applicant, Wojciech Kunert, is a Polish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Wrocław   (Poland).   The case concerned conditions of detention and an alleged denial of access to court.   Mr Kunert was detained in Wrocław Remand Centre for various periods between 1991 and 2014,   including from June 2009 to October 2010. During his detention, between 29 July and 26 August   he was held in overcrowded cells in which the space per person was below the Polish statutory   minimum standard of 3 sq. m.   In April 2011 he brought a civil claim before the courts against the State Treasury for infringement of   his personal rights and for compensation on account of his detention in overcrowded cells. In the   course of the proceedings the court rejected an application for legal aid but instructed him that all   pleadings should be submitted in two copies.   In October 2012 the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court dismissed his claim. The court found that   the applicant’s cells had indeed been overcrowded for approximately one month, but that he had   failed to demonstrate that the defendant’s actions had been unlawful.   On 10 October 2012, he lodged a letter with the court which it treated as an appeal, however, there   was only one copy of it. In December 2012 Mr Kunert lodged a request for leave to appeal out of   time against the judgment, as well as two copies of a letter entitled “appeal”.   The court dismissed the applicant’s request for leave to appeal, and explained that he had already   lodged his appeal on 10 October 2012. It further issued an order and instructed him to comply with   the formal requirements of his appeal by submitting a copy of it within seven days.   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   Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.   Shortly afterwards, Mr Kunert submitted a letter in which he informed the court that he was unable   to comply with the order because he did not have the text of his appeal that he could copy or   rewrite and he did not remember the exact wording. He added that he had not been aware that he   should have submitted his appeal in two copies. However, in March 2013 the court rejected his   appeal for failure to submit an exact copy of it.   An interlocutory appeal by Mr Kunert was dismissed on the grounds that he, the person who had   started a civil action and had known that he had been deprived of his liberty, could justifiably be   expected to keep copies of all letters he sent to the court, especially since he had been informed   that two copies of all such letters had to be submitted.   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human   Rights, Mr Kunert complained that the rejection of his appeal for failure to send an identical copy of   the appeal to the court had deprived him of the right of access to a court.   No violation of Article 6   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)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Patrick Lannin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 44 18)   Somi Nikol (tel: + 33 3 90 21 64 25)   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