CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 11 janvier 2005

.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 } .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   014 11.1.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   “Pinto” cases adjourned pending decision on test case   The European Court of Human Rights has agreed to adjourn a series of over 800 Italian length-of-proceedings cases, pending its decision in a test case concerning the application of Italy’s “Pinto Law [1] ”.   The applicants in these cases claim that they received insufficient compensation, although the Italian courts found, applying the Pinto Law, that the length of the civil, criminal or administrative proceedings to which they were parties was excessive. They all rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and, in some cases, on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   In its admissibility decision in one such case – Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) (application no. 36813/97, decision of 27 March 2003) – the Court found that the compensation awarded to the applicants under the Pinto Law could not be considered adequate. In its Chamber judgment in the case (29 July 2004), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   On 29 October 2004, the Italian Government requested that Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court [2] , a request which is currently before a Grand Chamber panel. The Government further asked that all cases raising the same issues as   Scordino be suspended pending, first, the panel’s decision and, should the panel accept the referral request, the Grand Chamber judgment.   In December 2004 the Court agreed to adjourn Scordino clone cases prior to the panel’s decision, which is expected early in 2005.   A Chamber of the Court has also decided to relinquish jurisdiction to the Grand Chamber in another case concerning the level of compensation awarded by the Italian courts in the Pinto decisions, Cagnoni v. Italy (no. 48156/99).   ***   Further information about the Court can be found 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] The Pinto Law, which came into force in 2001, has introduced a legal remedy in cases where the length of proceedings   before the Italian courts has been excessive.     [2] 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.