CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 16 décembre 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sB0BA28C7 { width:144.81pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s33401DB6 { width:336.9pt; display:inline-block } .s56DE058C { width:171.48pt; display:inline-block } .s9710F48E { width:249.58pt; display:inline-block } .s9410DAEE { width:162.14pt; 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   639 16.12.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Croatia and Italy   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]   Radovanovic v. Austria (no. 42703/98)   Just satisfaction The applicant, Jovo Radovanovic, is a national of Serbia and Montenegro, born in Vienna in 1979. After being sentenced to more than 30 months imprisonment for aggravated robbery and burglary he was expelled from Austria and a residence prohibition of unlimited duration was issued against him.   He claimed that the imposition of this residence prohibition was in violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   In its Chamber judgment of 22 April 2004, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8. The Court considered that the imposition of a residence prohibition of unlimited duration was an overly rigorous measure; a less intrusive measure, such as a residence prohibition of a limited duration, would have sufficed.   In today’s judgment, the Court held, unanimously, that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him 8,315 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)       Friendly settlements Bačić v. Croatia (no. 3742/02) Boca v. Croatia (no. 9504/02) Divjak v. Croatia (no. 9520/02) Miščević v. Croatia (no. 15312/02) Surla v. Croatia (no. 9704/02) The applicants are all Croatian nationals: Ljubica Bačić was born in 1931 and lives in Split, Croatia; Ruža Boca was born in 1952 and lives in Zagreb; Živka Divjak and Milivoj Divjak were born in 1932 and 1928 respectively and live in Sisak, Croatia; Vladimir Surla was born in 1937 and lives in Zagreb, and Marica Miščević was born in 1927 and lives in Zagreb.   In all five cases the applicants’ houses were blown up by unknown perpetrators   All the applicants complained that the enactment of the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 violated their right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). The applicants in the last four cases also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which EUR 6,000 is to be paid to the applicants in the Bačić , Boca , Miščević and Surla cases, and EUR 10,000 to the applicants in the Divjak case, for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Capellini v. Italy (no. 64009/00)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Daniela Capellini, is an Italian national, born in 1956 and living in Milan.   The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that she had been unable to recover possession of her flat within a reasonable time. She further complained about the length of the eviction proceedings, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 5,717.70 is to be paid for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Mascolo v. Italy (no. 68792/01)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Sergio Mascolo, is an Italian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Agerola (Italy).   The applicant complained that for a lengthy period, on account of the lack of police assistance, it had been impossible for him to recover possession of his flat, and of the length of the eviction procedure. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 700 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   ***   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.