CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 4 octobre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s33401DB6 { width:336.9pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s9A32A52D { width:153.47pt; display:inline-block } .s12E025EB { width:117.44pt; display:inline-block } .sB43C8F91 { width:74.78pt; display:inline-block } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; display:inline-block } .s91163E8 { width:33.46pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s556ED54D { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sE9B6CCFB { width:132.8pt; display:inline-block } .sBA40FC9E { width:135.49pt; display:inline-block } .sEBFE7A95 { width:102.79pt; display:inline-block } .s54163CEA { width:90.79pt; display:inline-block } .s1E64D7D5 { width:73.5pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   704   4.10.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Italy, Poland and Portugal   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 19 Chamber judgments (only the friendly settlements are final [1] ):   SECTION 2   Friendly settlements The applicants in the following ten cases complained about their prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of their apartments and about the duration of the eviction proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which the following amounts, in Italian lire (ITL), are to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   (1)     Barone v. Italy (application no. 30968/96) almost 13 years to evict the tenant [] ITL 50,000,000 (2)     Immobiliare Anba v. Italy (no. 31916/96) just over 12 years and two months * ITL 35,000,000 (3)     Micucci v. Italy (no. 31922/96) approximately eight years * ITL 30,000,000 (4)     Serlenga v. Italy (no. 31927/96) just over eight years [**] ITL 30,000,000 (5)     Pini and Bini v. Italy (no. 31929/96) exactly eight years ** ITL 92,000,000 (ITL 46,000,000 to each applicant) (6)     Girolami Zurla v. Italy (no. 32404/96) almost five years ** ITL 20,000,000 (7)     Castello v. Italy (no. 32645/96) lease terminated on 31 December 1990 and still not vacated on 2 April 2001. ITL 50,000,000 (to Mr Castello’s heirs) (8)     Tentori   Montalto v. Italy (no. 32648/96) almost 10 years ** ITL 90,000,000 (9)     SIT s.r.l.   v. Italy (no. 32650/96) approximately 14 years and six months** ITL 40,000,000 (10)     Musiani Dagnini v. Italy (no. 33831/96) almost 10 years ** ITL 55,000,000 (11)     I.M .   v. Greece (no. 49281/99)   Friendly settlement I.M., a Greek national, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of criminal proceedings against him, lasting four years and seven months.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 800,000 Greek drachmas (GRD) is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (12)     Marinakos v. Greece (no. 49282/99)   Friendly settlement Ioannis Marinakos, a Greek national, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, about the refusal by the Greek administration to conform with a decision of the Auditor General’s Department granting him a supplementary pension.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 1,000,000 GRD is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   SECTION 4   (13)     Iłowiecki v. Poland (no. 27504/95)   Violation Article 5 §§ 3 and 4   Violation Article 6 § 1 In November 1993 Wojciech Iłowiecki, a Polish national, was charged with forgery and attempting to obtain a 25,000,000 US-dollar loan by false pretences and detained on remand. He complained, relying on Article 5 § 3, about the length of his detention on remand (one year, nine months and 19 days) and that the Polish courts did not examine his applications for release “speedily”, relying on Article 5 § 4.   Finally, relying on Article 6 § 1, he complained about the length of the proceedings (which lasted more than seven years and ten months.)   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3, Article 5 § 4 and Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 25,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is only available in English.)   (14)     Potocka and others v. Poland (no. 33776/96)   No violation Article 6 § 1   The applicants are four Spanish nationals,   Pelagia-Maria Potocka, Piotr Potocki, Dorota Potocka-Radziwiłł and Anna Potocka, the second of whom also has Polish nationality, and Izabela d’Ornano who has French and Polish nationality. The case concerns the ownership of two plots of land in Warsaw, which had been expropriated in 1945. In 1947 an application was submitted for temporary ownership of the land, which remained unanswered. A palace built on the plots had been substantially destroyed during the Second World War and had, the Government claimed, been re-built subsequently using State funds.   First in 1947, and later in 1990 under the Land Administration and Expropriation Act of 1985, the applicants applied unsuccessfully for the right to permanent use of the plots in question. Their appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court was rejected.   The applicants alleged, in particular, under Article 6 § 1, that they did not have access to a court, as the Supreme Administrative Court, which was competent to deal with their case, did not have full jurisdiction on questions of fact and law. In addition, that court’s jurisdiction was limited to cases concerning administrative proceedings instituted after a certain date. Finding that the scope of review of the Supreme Administrative Court was sufficient to comply with Article 6 § 1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court also held, unanimously, that the case lay outside its jurisdiction concerning the complaint about the alleged lack of effective access to a court concerning the proceedings instituted in 1947 [2] . (The judgment is only available in English.)   (15)     Bejer v. Poland (no. 38328/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Józef Bejer, a Polish national born in 1920 and living in Szymbark, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of civil proceedings concerning his donation of plots of land and his agricultural estate, which lasted 16 years and eight months (of which the Court can only take into consideration five years, 11 months and 23 days [3] ).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant PLN 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage and PLN 4,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (16)     Costa v. Portugal (no. 44135/98)   Friendly settlement Maria Paula Costa, a Portuguese national born in 1934 and living in Lisbon, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of the proceedings she instituted claiming damages, following a disciplinary sanction against her, which were started on 14 September 1995 and are still pending.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 700,000 Portuguese escudos (PTE) is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage and PTE 150,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (17)     Barata Dias v. Portugal (no. 44296/98)   Friendly settlement José Barata Dias, a Portuguese national born in 1935 and living in Sintra (Portugal), complained about the length of civil proceedings (which lasted almost nine years and four months) he instituted against an insurance company concerning compensation for damage caused by an explosion of electrical equipment near his house.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which PTE 800,000 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage and PTE 150,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (18)     Jácome Allier v. Portugal (no. 44616/98)   Friendly settlement Maria de Lourdes Jácome Allier, a Portuguese national born in 1945 and living Caldas da Rainha (Portugal), complained about the length of civil proceedings (which lasted almost five years and four months) concerning the reimbursement of sums of money she had lent to the defendants.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which PTE 500,000 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage and PTE 200,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (19)     Branquinho Luís v. Portugal (no. 45348/99)   Friendly settlement Alexandra Maria Branquinho Luís, a Portuguese national born in 1970 and living in Castro Marim (Portugal), complained about the length of civil proceedings (started on 10 May 1994 and still pending on 4 October 2001) concerning a claim for damages from an insurance company following a traffic accident in which she was involved.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which PTE 900,000 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   ***   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 Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [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. [] The period given is calculated from when the writ was served on the tenant. [**] The period given is calculated from the date of the expiry of each lease.   [2] The Court cannot deal with complaints concerning events which occurred before the State concerned ratified the European Convention on Human Rights. In this case the events took place prior to the existence of the Convention, signed in 1950. [3] The period of time after Poland recognised the right of individual petition on 1 May 1993.