CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s5DBD44AB { width:13.24pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF9E224C { width:76.1pt; display:inline-block } .s913F377E { width:252.91pt; display:inline-block } .s6815DDF4 { width:34.56pt; display:inline-block } .s54163CEA { width:90.79pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   745   18.10.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Germany, Italy and Latvia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments (only Kulakova v. Latvia is final [1] ):   SECTION 2   (1)     Indelicato v. Italy (no. 31143/96)       Violation Article 3 (inadequate investigation)   Rosario Indelicato, an Italian national, was arrested and imprisoned in 1992 in the context of an investigation into drug-trafficking activities by the Mafia. He was transferred to Pianosa Prison on 20 July 1992 where he was held in the high-security “Agrippa” section until 2 September 1997. He alleges that he was subjected to degrading treatment, including, among other things, being hit with truncheons. He was ultimately acquitted.   Finding that the facts complained of had not been established beyond all reasonable doubt, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the allegations of ill-treatment in Pianosa Prison.   However, the Court observed that the statements made by the applicant’s wife and the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment during the trial gave rise to plausible suspicion that the applicant had undergone questionable treatment while in Pianosa Prison. Moreover, the applicant was not the only prisoner who had complained of reprehensible conduct on the part of the warders. Furthermore, the existence of questionable practices on the part of the Pianosa warders had been publicly and forcefully criticised even by State authorities, namely the Livorno judge responsible for the execution of sentences and the Tuscany prisons inspectorate.   As a result of an inquiry conducted under the authority of the Livorno Public Prosecutor, two Pianosa warders had been identified and prosecuted. However, their trial had not begun until 20 May 1998, approximately five years and eight months after the criminal complaint was lodged, on 10 September 1992, and attempts to identify those presumed responsible for the acts complained of had gone no further than the display, in 1994 only, of photographs of 262 warders who had worked at Pianosa. Lastly, the case was still pending before the Livorno Public Prosecutor, after the Florence Court of Appeal, on 3   February 2000, had reclassified the offence and set aside the Livorno magistrate’s court’s decision of 2   February 1999.   Regard being had to the very lengthy delay while the initial inquiry was being conducted, the negligence in identification of those presumed responsible and the length of both the first inquiry and the second – which moreover had been pending since February 2000 – the Court considered that the Italian authorities had not adopted the positive measures which the existence of an arguable complaint required in the present case.   The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the negligence and the delay it had found in the prosecution of the inquiries conducted by the relevant authorities.   The applicant was awarded 70,000 000 Italian lire (ITL) for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 15,664,480 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is only available in French.)     (2)     Sciortino v. Italy (application no. 30127/96)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   In July 1990 Giacomo Sciortino, an Italian national, filed an application with the Court of Audit seeking recognition and payment of an increase to his pension. On 23 November 1993 the Court of Audit admitted the claim and ordered that the Sicily Region pay the applicant the money to which he was entitled.     Following delays in complying with the Court of Audit’s decision, the applicant filed “compliance” proceedings with the Sicily Regional Administrative Court, which, on 11 July 1997, granted the claim and ordered the competent regional administration to comply fully with the Court of Audit’s judgment within 60 days from the date when the decision would be served or communicated to the applicant. The applicant complained that he had not been paid all the money, including interest, to which he was entitled; he claimed a total of ITL 5,976,400 was outstanding on 31 December 2000.   He also complained about the excessive length of a second set of proceedings before the Court of Audit (which lasted five years), in which he sought the recalculation of his pension.   The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) of the   Convention in the second set of proceedings. It further held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), due to the authorities’ failure to fully implement the Court of Audit’s and the Regional Administrative Court’s judgments in the first set of proceedings. The applicant was awarded ITL 5,976,400 for pecuniary damage, ITL 10,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 7,334,344 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English).     (3)     Kulakova v. Latvia (no. 50108/99)                                                    Friendly Settlement Ņina Kulakova, a national of the ex-USSR but a “permanent resident” of Latvia was born in 1950 and lives in Riga. She complained about the length of criminal proceedings to which she was a civil party, relying on Article 6 § 1.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 5,000 Latvian lati is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French).     SECTION 4   (4)     Mianowicz v. Germany (no. 42505/98)       Violation Article 6 § 1 Thomasz Mianowicz, is a Polish national born in 1955 and living in Munich, who has a disability. He complained about the length of the proceedings (which lasted almost 12 years and 10 months) concerning his dismissal for being absent from work because of his illness.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 15,000 German marks (DEM) for non-pecuniary damage and DEM 5,000 for costs and expenses. (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.