CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 novembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD31CCF7E { width:91.46pt; display:inline-block } .s212D8584 { width:56.08pt; display:inline-block } .sDB64876 { width:131.48pt; display:inline-block } .s6538F462 { width:113.48pt; 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   837   13.11.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING France and Lithuania   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments (none of which is final [1] ):   SECTION 3   (1)     Šleževičius v. Lithuania (no. 55479/00)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Adolfas Šleževičius, a Lithuanian national born in 1948 and living in Vilnius, was Prime Minister of Lithuania from 1993 to 1996.   In January 1996 two members of the Seimas (Parliament) asked the Prosecutor General to institute criminal proceedings against Mr Šleževičius in connection with allegations of financial impropriety amounting to abuse of office. On 24 January 1996 proceedings were instituted and the applicant’s bank accounts were seized. On 8 February 1996 he resigned as Prime Minister in order to pursue business activities and on 10 October 1996 he was charged with abuse of office.   On 13 March 1997, on 30 September 1998 and again on 13 July 1999, Vilnius Regional Court found that the investigations had been conducted improperly as the charges against the applicant had been unclear.   On 18 April 2000 the Vilnius regional prosecutor informed the applicant that the proceedings against him had been discontinued and that the pre-trial investigation had been adjourned given, among other things, a lack of evidence. Mr Šleževičius appealed, claiming that the proceedings had not been definitively discontinued. On 31 August 2000 his appeal was dismissed.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Šleževičius complained about the length of criminal proceedings against him, which lasted four years, two months and 25 days.   The European Court of Human Rights considered that, although the proceedings might be deemed to have been complex, the domestic authorities had shown neither diligence nor rigour in the handling of the proceedings. Clear charges were never formulated and a trial did not take place. In the absence of any indication of the applicant’s responsibility for the delays, the Court found that the length of the proceedings was excessive.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 30,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL) for non-pecuniary damage and LTL 70,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (2)     Francisco v. France (application no. 38945/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1 José   Francisco, a French national (now deceased), complained about the length of two sets of proceedings he brought for damages, following his confinement in a mental hospital.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant’s heirs 60,000 French francs (FRF) for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 8,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     (3)     Durand v. France (no. 41449/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 (4)     Durand (2) v. France (no. 42038/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Louis   Durand, a French national, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of administrative proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted nine years, two months and 18 days for two levels of jurisdiction, in the first case, and nine years and five months for two levels of jurisdiction, in the second.   The Court held unanimously that, in both judgments, there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant FRF 40,000 for non-pecuniary damage for each violation. (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.