issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 142 (2011)
13.09.2011
1
Judgments concerning Moldova, Poland, Serbia, Turkey and
the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 12
judgments, none of which are final.
Repetitive cases2 and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding
indicated, can be found at the end of the press release. The judgments available only in
French are indicated with an asterisk (*).
Dragostea Copiilor - Petrovschi - Nagornii v. Moldova (no. 25575/08)
The applicant company runs a primary school in Chişinău (Moldova). A party to civil
proceedings in 2001, the company was ordered to pay an individual 78,400 US dollars.
However, in a final judgment in July 2007, an appeal court found that the application for
enforcement of the order was time-barred. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial)
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on
Human Rights, the company complained that the final judgment in its favour had been
subsequently quashed in review proceedings, which ended in October 2008 with a
Supreme Court judgment enforcing the original payment order. The company also
complained that the judge rapporteur in the review proceedings had been changed in
disregard of the applicable provisions.
Violation of Article 6 § 1
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Question of just satisfaction reserved
Bystrowski v. Poland (application no. 15476/02)
The applicant, Artur Bystrowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1963 and lives in
Strzelin. Convicted of a number of offences, including multiple theft, forgery and
leadership of an organised criminal gang, and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment in
2004, he complained, in particular, that the length of his detention on remand had been
unreasonable. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention.
Relying further on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8
(right to respect for private and family life and the home), he complained, in particular,
that he had been detained in an overcrowded cell and that his correspondence with the
European Court of Human Rights had been monitored.
No violation of Article 5 § 3
Complaints under Article 3 and 8: The Court took note of the Government’s unilateral
declaration in which they acknowledged that the applicant’s conditions of detention, in
particular overcrowding, had not been compatible with Article 3 and that the censorship
of the applicant’s correspondence had not been compatible with the requirements of
Article 8, and that they offered to pay him 8,000 Polish zlotys in respect of pecuniary
1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month
period following a 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:
2 In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the
Convention.
