CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 4 novembre 2008

.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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   775 4.11.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Belgium, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 38 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) No violation of Article 10 Balsyte-Lideikiene v. Lithuania (application no. 72596/01) The applicant, Danutė Balsytė-Lideikienė, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Vilnius (Lithuania). She formerly owned a publishing company.   In March 2001 the domestic courts found that the applicant had breached Article   214 12 of the Code on Administrative Law Offences on account of her publishing and distributing the “Lithuanian calendar 2000” which, according to the conclusions of the experts, promoted ethnic hatred. She was issued with an administrative warning and the unsold copies of the calendar were confiscated. Relying on Article   6 §§   1 and   3   (d) (right to a fair hearing and a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained that her case had been examined by the first-instance court without the experts being summoned to the hearing and that on appeal the Supreme Administrative Court did not hold a hearing.   She also complained that the confiscation of the calendar and the ban on its further distribution was in breach of Article   10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights observed that the first-instance court had appointed experts to produce political science, bibliographical, psychological and historical reports with the aim of establishing whether “Lithuanian calendar 2000” promoted ethnic hatred, whether it contained anti-Semitic, anti-Polish, anti-Russian expressions, or assertions of the superiority of Lithuanians vis-à-vis other ethnic groups. The Court noted that when finding Mrs   Balsytė-Lideikienė guilty, both national courts extensively quoted the experts’ conclusions, which had a key place in the proceedings against her. However, she was not given the opportunity to question the experts in order to subject their credibility to scrutiny or cast any doubt on their conclusions. The refusal to entertain her request to have the experts examined in open court failed to meet the requirements of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court concluded by six votes to one that there had been a violation of this Article. It found it unnecessary to examine separately the question of the absence of a public hearing before the Supreme Administrative Court. Mrs   Balsytė-Lideikienė was awarded 2,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,645 for costs and expenses.   The Court considered that the administrative penalty and the confiscation of the publication had interfered with Mrs   Balsytė-Lideikienė’s right to freedom of expression. The punishment was aimed at protecting the reputation and rights of the ethnic groups living in Lithuania and referred to in “Lithuanian calendar 2000”.   The Court took into account the Lithuanian Government’s explanation as to the context of the case, namely that after the re-establishment of the independence of the Republic of Lithuania on 11   March 1990 the questions of territorial integrity and national minorities had been sensitive. The Court also noted that the publication had received negative reactions from some diplomatic representations and that under international law Lithuania had an obligation to prohibit any advocacy of national hatred and to take measures to protect persons who might be subject to such threats as a result of their ethnic identity.   The Court considered that the applicant had expressed aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism and statements inciting hatred against the Poles and the Jews which, in the Court’s view, were capable of giving the Lithuanian authorities cause for serious concern. Having regard to the margin of appreciation left to the Contracting States in such circumstances, the Court found that in the present case the domestic authorities had not overstepped their margin of appreciation when they considered that there was a pressing social need to take measures against the applicant.   Finally, the Court noted that even though the confiscation measure imposed on the applicant could be deemed relatively serious, Mrs   Balsytė-Lideikienė had not had a fine imposed on her, but only a warning, which was the mildest administrative punishment available.   Having regard to the foregoing, the Court concluded that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression could reasonably have been considered necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. It therefore unanimously held that there had been no violation of Article   10.     (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Tudor-Comert v. Moldova (no. 27888/04) The applicant, Tudor-Comert, is a company registered in Chişinău. In June 1997 the police sealed a warehouse rented by the applicant company. The case concerned the applicant company’s complaint about the domestic courts’ refusal to examine its appeal in the ensuing proceedings for damages because it could not pay the court fees. The applicant company relied on Article   6 §   1 (right of access to a court).   The Court noted that the applicant company had been unable to pay the court fees as it had had no economic activity at that time, and that its law suit concerned allegedly unlawful acts by the State authorities which had effectively ruined the company. In the Court’s view, the amount claimed as compensation (in excess of 1,000,000   United States dollars (USD)), that of the court fees requested (EUR   21,021) and the Moldovan courts’ failure to determine the company’s ability to pay the fees had limited the latter’s right of access to court to a point where it became illusory. Therefore, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and awarded the applicant company EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,530 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 Bruczyński v. Poland (no. 19206/03) Violation of Article 5 § 3 Cynarski v. Poland (no. 30049/06) Violation of Article 5 §   3 Violation of Article 8 Janulis v. Poland (no. 20251/04) The applicants are three Polish nationals: Maciej Bruczyński who was born in 1974 and lives in Kórnik (Poland); Krzysztof Cynarski who was born in 1976 and lives in Warsaw; and, Adam Janulis, who was born in 1974 and lives in Ostróda (Poland). In   June 2000 Mr   Bruczyński was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of robbery and extortion. He was released in January 2004. In November 2003 Mr   Cynarski was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of car theft. He was released in October 2006 and placed under police supervision. The proceedings against both those applicants are currently still pending on appeal. Mr   Janulis was arrested and remanded in custody in March 2002 on suspicion of car theft. He was ultimately convicted as charged in July 2004 and sentenced to three years and eight months’ imprisonment. Relying, in particular, on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), all three applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Mr   Bruczyński further complained that he had no enforceable right to compensation in respect of his pre-trial detention complaint, in breach of Article   5   §   5 (enforceable right to compensation). Mr   Janulis’ case also concerned alleged censorship of his correspondence, in breach of Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence).   The Court held unanimously that in these three cases there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the excessive length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention, that lasted for three years and more than six months in the Bruczyński case, more than two years and eleven months in the Cynarski case, and for almost one year and nine months in the Janulis case.   The Court also held unanimously that in the Bruczyński case there had been a further violation of Article   5   §   5 as the applicant had no enforceable right to compensation for his detention which had been found to be in violation of Article   5   §   3. The Court further held unanimously that in the Janulis case there had been a violation of Article   8 on account of the censorship of a letter sent by the applicant to the Court while he was held in detention.   In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   1,500 to Mr   Bruczyński, EUR   1,500 to Mr   Janulis, and EUR   1,000 to Mr   Cynarski. Mr   Bruczyński was awarded EUR   1,650 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (d) Demski v. Poland (no. 22695/03) The applicant, Arkadiusz Demski, is a Polish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Głogów (Poland). In July 2001 he was convicted of raping a 17-year-old girl, M.H., and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that he was not able to examine the main witness, M.H., the victim, in the criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) (right to a fair trial and to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses).   The Court considered that Mr   Demski’s conviction had been to a decisive extent based on the depositions of M.H. whom he had had no opportunity to examine or to have examined either during the investigation or at the trial. M.H. was residing abroad but the authorities failed to make every reasonable effort to determine her actual address in order to obtain her attendance at the trial. However, it could not be said that her whereabouts were unknown or that she sought ways to avoid a confrontation with the defendants. Noting that special features of criminal proceedings concerning rape might require balancing the needs of the defence against those of witnesses or victims called upon to testify, t he Court observed that arrangements could in any event have been made to allow M.H. to give evidence in a manner which would have spared her the ordeal of an adversarial procedure while respecting the rights of the defence.   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 taken together with Article   6 §   3   (d) and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. Mr   Demski was awarded EUR   2,510 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 8 Eryk Kozłowski v. Poland (no. 12269/02) The applicant, Eryk Kozłowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Szczecin (Poland). In June 1999 he was arrested on suspicion of robbery. He was convicted as charged in September 2001 and sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment. That judgment was upheld on appeal. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about: the unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention on remand; the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him; and the fact that his parents were refused permission to visit him during most of his pre-trial detention as it was feared that they might obstruct the proceedings. He relied on Article   5 (right to liberty and security), Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   The Court noted that between June 1999 and September 2001 the applicant’s parents had only been allowed to visit him six times. With the passage of time and given the severity of the consequences for the applicant’s family life of the lack of contact with his parents, as well as the authorities’ general obligation to assist the applicant in maintaining contact with his family during his detention, the Court considered that the situation called for a careful review of the necessity of keeping him in complete isolation from his mother. However, no alternative means of ensuring that the applicant’s contact with his parents would not lead to any collusive action or otherwise obstruct the process of taking evidence had been considered, such as, for instance, supervision by a prison officer. Nor had the competent authorities given detailed reasons for their decisions.   The Court considered that Mr Kozłowski’s family life had been diminished to a degree that could be justified neither by the inherent limitations involved in detention nor by the pursuance of the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder and crime relied on by the Polish Government. It concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   8 on account of restrictions of the applicant’s contacts with his family, and awarded him EUR   1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bacso v. Romania (no. 9293/03) The applicants: Johann Bacso, born in 1939, and Elisabeth Bacso, born in 1942, have dual Romanian and German nationality and are husband and wife. They live in Grossniedsheim (Germany). They used to be the owners of a flat in Braşov (Romania), which was nationalised in 1975.   In April 1997 the State sold the flat to a third party who had been living in it as a tenant until then. In 1998 the applicants brought an action for recovery of possession, rescission of the contract of sale and eviction of the purchaser. The Braşov Court of Appeal allowed their action in part in January 2000 by acknowledging their title as owners of the flat. The applicants brought a second action for rescission of the contract of sale, which was dismissed in September 2002 by the Braşov Court of Appeal on the ground that the matter had already been dealt with ( res judicata ).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants alleged that there had been an interference with their right of access to a court on account of the dismissal of their second action for rescission of the contract of sale. They also complained that the Braşov Court of Appeal had lacked impartiality as both judgments had been delivered by an identically composed bench. Lastly, they complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that they were denied peaceful enjoyment of their flat.   The Court considered that the fact of having had access to a court, merely to hear their action be declared inadmissible through the operation of res judicata provisions had deprived the applicants of any clear or practical access to a court. Consequently, it concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and held that it was not necessary to rule separately on the complaint based on the alleged lack of impartiality of the Braşov Court of Appeal. The Court also concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the ineffectiveness of the applicants’ title to their property and the total lack of compensation. It awarded the applicants EUR   5,000 jointly for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   900 in respect of all costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bota v. Romania (no. 16382/03) The applicant, Pompiliu Bota, is a Romanian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Orǎştie (Romania). At the material time he was the sole member and the manager of S., a limited liability company.   Mr Bota complained of his two-year suspended prison sentence for tax evasion following an application lodged by the Procurator-General to set aside a final judgment in which he had been acquitted of the offence. He also complained that a final decision awarding him compensation for detention during the proceedings had been set aside. He relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice).   The Court found that the domestic court had not been justified in setting aside Mr Bota’s acquittal and that the application by the Procurator-General had merely been an appeal in disguise that had upset the fair balance between the interests at stake. It held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It also held that setting aside the judgment in which the applicant had been awarded compensation had resulted in a violation of Article   6   §   1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court held that there was no need to rule separately on the complaint based on Article 4 of Protocol No.   7 and awarded the applicant EUR   14,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Deak v. Romania (no. 42790/02) The applicant, Adelaida Deak, is a Romanian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Bucharest.   The case concerned the dismissal by the domestic courts, on the grounds of inadmissibility, of an action brought by the applicant relating to her pension rights. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court), the applicant disputed the decision of the domestic courts not to examine her appeal on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.   The Court considered that the concrete application in the present case of Romanian law governing appeals against administrative decisions relating to pension rights had resulted in interference with the applicant’s right of access to a court that amounted to a denial of justice. It concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR   2,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is only available in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Dinu v. Romania and France (no. 6152/02) The applicant, Cristina Dinu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Braşov (Romania).   In May 1995 Mrs Dinu obtained a final decision from the Romanian courts ordering her ex-husband, a Romanian national living in France, to pay her maintenance for their minor son. In July 1995 she commenced the procedure provided for under the New York Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance. Authority to execute the Romanian decisions was issued in April 2004 and the enforcement proceedings were terminated in September 2007 by the relevant French court, which found that the debt in maintenance arrears had been extinguished on 27 November 2006 at the latest.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained of the lack of diligence by the relevant Romanian and French authorities in assisting her with enforcement of the decisions awarding her maintenance for her son.   The Court found that the Romanian and French authorities had failed to use all necessary endeavours to ensure speedy enforcement of the judicial decisions given in the applicant’s favour. Accordingly, it held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 by Romania and France and awarded the applicant EUR   16,000 for non-pecuniary damage, of which EUR   6,000 were payable by Romania and EUR   10,000 by France, plus EUR   1,500 payable by each of the States for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) No violation of Article 10 Mihaiu v. Romania (no. 42512/02) The applicant, Liviu Georgicǎ Mihaiu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Bucharest.   Mr Mihaiu, who is a journalist, published an article in August 1999 in the satirical newspaper Academia Caţavencu entitled “The word that sullies ideals” in which he made accusations against the editor of the daily newspaper Adevǎrul , D.T. The applicant claimed, among other things, that D.T. had accepted a luxury wrist-watch from the Balli group during a press conference organised by the group, which – according to the article in question – had brought about the insolvency of one of Romania’s biggest businesses. The article was accompanied by a photo showing a man’s wrist wearing a Bulgari watch. The applicant, who had based his assertions on the statements of third parties, subsequently learnt that D.T. had not in fact taken part in the press conference in question and the newspaper published a rectification in the following issue. D.T. lodged a criminal complaint with the Bucharest Court of First Instance, complaining that the applicant had made a number of defamatory statements about him. In April 2002 the Court of First Instance acquitted the applicant on the ground that one of the constituent elements of defamation, namely, intent, had not been made out. In June 2002 the Bucharest County Court, ruling on appeal, set aside the judgment following a hearing at which the applicant, who was absent, was represented by his lawyer. Finding that, through his article, the applicant had exposed D.T. to public opprobrium and had tarnished his good reputation, dignity and public image as well as his credibility as a journalist by alleging that he had accepted a wrist-watch from the Balli group, the County Court held that the constituent elements of defamation had been made out and sentenced him to a criminal fine and orderd him to pay damages.   Relying on Article 6   §§   1 and 3   b), c) and d) (right to a fair trial), the applicant alleged that the Bucharest County Court had convicted him without having heard him in person and without a direct assessment of the evidence. He also submitted that his conviction for defamation had resulted in a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression).   The Court held that the applicant’s conviction without having been heard in person and, above all, after his acquittal by the court of first instance, was contrary to the requirements of a fair trial. Accordingly, it held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1.   The Court also held that in levelling a direct accusation at a particular person, specifying his name and occupation, the onus had been on the applicant to provide a sufficient factual basis in the proceedings against him. Noting that the comments to the effect that D.T. had participated in the conference and accepted a wrist-watch had not been supported by any evidence, the Court was not convinced of the applicant’s alleged good faith. On the contrary, it considered that when repeating statements attributed to third parties, the applicant should have exercised the utmost rigour and special care before publishing the article. Accordingly, in the absence of good faith and any factual basis, and although the article in question had been published in the context of a broader and highly topical debate in Romania, namely, the independence of the press, the Court did not discern in the applicant’s comments the expression of a “degree of exaggeration” or “provocation” that were covered by journalistic licence. Accordingly, the Court found the reasons given in support of the applicant’s conviction to be relevant and sufficient and held that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression had been “necessary in a democratic society”. Accordingly, it held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 10. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Wilkowicz v. Poland (no. 74168/01) The case concerned the prolonged non-payment of sums owed by a State body to the applicant.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Anghelescu v. Romania (No. 2) (no. 14578/03) The Court found the above violation in this case because the applicant had been unable to use, and collect the rent from, a building which had been returned to him.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bone v. Romania (no. 12776/06) Ernest v. Romania (no. 2230/02) Gingis v. Romania (no. 35955/02) Jantea v. Romania (no. 29798/03) Olimpia-Maria Teodorescu v. Romania (no. 43774/02) The Court found the above violation in these five cases concerning the applicants’ complaints about their inability to recover possession of property that had been nationalised and subsequently sold by the State.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Delca v. Romania (no. 25765/04) The Court unanimously found the above violations on account of the delayed execution of a final judgment given in the applicant’s favour.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in conjunction with Article 14 Mihai v. Romania (no. 26842/03) Aurel Radu v. Romania (no. 26838/03) Vasiliu v. Romania (no. 26833/03 Văsui v. Romania (no. 26834/03) Zaharia v. Romania (no. 26835/03) The Court found the above violations in these five cases in which the applicants complained that the severance pay due to them on account of their discharge to the reserve list had been unlawfully liable to income tax and that he had been discriminated against as compared with other servicemen in an analogous position.   Just satisfaction Friendly settlement Orha v. Romania (no. 1486/02) In a judgment of 12 October 2006, the Court had held that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the authorities’ failure to enforce a final court judgment finding that the applicants’ property had been expropriated and awarding compensation for expropriation. It also held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   The Court took note today of the friendly settlement agreed on by the parties and the terms according to which the applicants are recorded as owners of the land in question in the land registry. In the light of the friendly settlement, the Court decided to strike the case out of the list.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Savu v. Romania (no. 19982/04) The Court found the above violations on account of the setting aside, following an appl ication by the Procurator-General, of a final decision given in favour of the applicant.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Gani Özcan v. Turkey (no. 11189/04) The Court found the above violation on account of the applicant’s inability to obtain compensation for the revocation of his title to land.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular of the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Bell v. Belgium (no. 44826/05) Bartczak v. Poland (no. 15629/02) Graczyk v. Poland (no. 21246/05) Bič v. Slovakia (no. 23865/03) Iselsten v. Sweden (no. 11320/05) Ağrakçe v. Turkey (no. 29059/02) Zöhre Akyol v. Turkey (no. 28668/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Boboc v. Moldova (no. 27581/04) Panzari v. Moldova (no. 27516/04)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Văcăruş v. Romania (no. 1012/02)     ***   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 ).   Press contacts Adrien Raif-Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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. [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. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.