CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 1 juin 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s902F48A3 { width:91.47pt; display:inline-block } .s56FC127A { width:138.17pt; display:inline-block } .s1B51826 { width:118.81pt; display:inline-block } .s672BE378 { width:310.89pt; display:inline-block } .s3BDFADDC { width:49.51pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sCEC565E7 { width:10.73pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   275 1.6.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Slovakia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]     Narinen v. Finland (application no. 45027/98)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Jukka Narinen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Klaukkala.   The applicant complained about the interference with his correspondence following his bankruptcy, invoking Article 8 (right to respect of correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. The Court awarded the applicant 6,843   euros   (EUR) for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   L. v. the Netherlands (no. 45582/99)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, L., is a Dutch national, born in 1975 and living in Breda.   The applicant alleged that the rejection of his request for access to his daughter, born out of wedlock, amounted to a breach of Articles 8 (right to respect for family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.   The Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 8 and, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 14. The Court awarded the applicant EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,500 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   Urbańczyk v. Poland (no. 33777/96)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Andrzej Urbańczyk, is a Polish national, born in 1943 and living in Częstochowa (Poland).   The applicant alleged that the length of proceedings in which he sought building permission were excessive, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention and that he was prevented from having a house built on his own land, relying on Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that no separate issue arose under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court awarded the applicant EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violations of Article 6 § 1 Buzatu v. Romania (no. 34642/97)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Sanda Buzatu, is a Romanian national, born in 1937 and living in Bucharest. As heir to the estate, she brought an action claiming title to a property in Bucharest owned by her parents, which was nationalised by the Romanian State in 1950.   The applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, of the Supreme Court of Justice’s refusal to accept that the domestic courts had jurisdiction to hear a claim to title to land. She also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of a breach of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.   The Court reiterated that the quashing of a final judgment was contrary to the principle of legal certainty. Thus, in quashing a court decision that had become final, the Supreme Court of Justice had infringed the applicants’ right to a fair trial. The Court further reiterated that the Supreme Court’s failure to recognise the courts’ jurisdiction to determine the applicants’ action to establish title to property was in itself contrary to the right of access to a court. Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on both counts.   The Court went on to note that the applicants’ right of property had been established by a final judgment and was therefore irrevocable. The effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment had been to deprive her of her property. In those circumstances the Court considered that the applicant had borne and continued to bear an individual and excessive burden. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court held that it was not ready to make a decision on just satisfaction under Article 41 and awarded Mrs Buzatu EUR   947 costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Valová, Slezák et Slezák c. Slovakie (n o 44925/98)   Non-violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicants, Nadina Valová, Vít Slezák and Askold Slezák, are Slovakian nationals, born respectively in 1939, 1940 and 1948 and living respectively in Modra Harmónia and Cifer (Slovakia).   The applicants alleged, in particular, that their right to a public hearing before a tribunal and to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been violated, relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 and no violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court held that question of the application of the decision of just satisfaction under Article 41 was not ready for decision.   (The judgment is available only in English.)     ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   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. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.