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
14 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 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
2009 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.
1
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
2
Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.
