CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 14 septembre 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 } .sEC16EFA1 { width:11.2pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sDD8BD2A9 { width:27.26pt; display:inline-block } .s40894AAA { width:30.57pt; 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   430 14.9.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Moldova and Poland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Subiali v. France (application no. 65372/01)       Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, André Subiali, is a French national who was born in 1943 and lives at Thann (France).   He complained under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the length of two sets of criminal proceedings in which he had been convicted of forgery, attempted fraud, fraud and misappropriation of company assets.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the first set of proceedings, which were still pending in the French courts, had thus far lasted 16 years, while the second had taken six years for three levels of jurisdiction. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the first set of proceedings, but no violation in respect of the second. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) it awarded Mr Subiali 15,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Ţîmbal v. Moldova (no. 22970/02)         Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Alexandru Ţîmbal, a Moldovan national who was born in 1944 and lives in Chişinău (Moldova), complained about the failure to enforce a judgment of 16 September 1999 awarding him compensation of 8,394.4 Moldovan lei (equivalent to EUR 737.37 at the time). The judgment was enforced on 25 April 2003 after the case was communicated by the Court to the Moldovan Government.   The applicant complained of a violation of his right to have his civil rights determined by a court, guaranteed by Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 370 for pecuniary damage and EUR 800 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Marszał v. Poland (no. 63391/00)           Violation of Article 6 § 1 Jadwiga Marszał, a Polish national, was born in 1954 and lives in Bytom, Poland. She complained about the length of the civil proceedings she brought for compensation after losing her job, which lasted seven years, three months and three weeks, and the criminal proceedings against her for fraud, which lasted nearly seven years and eight months and following which she was acquitted.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 300 for costs and expenses. (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.