CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 17 janvier 2002

.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 } .sC8144565 { width:33.41pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC061CC95 { width:142.13pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3D4A3AFB { width:113.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9710F48E { width:249.58pt; display:inline-block } .s87E99523 { width:129.48pt; display:inline-block } .sBB98EE3D { width:131.47pt; 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 } .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     018   17.1.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Austria, France and Greece   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments, none of which is final [1] :   SECTION 1   (1)     Josef Fischer v. Austria (application no. 33382/96)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Josef Fischer, an Austrian national and antique dealer, was convicted, among other things, on numerous counts of handling stolen goods and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. He alleged, in particular, that, in criminal proceedings against him, written observations of the Procurator General on his plea of nullity to the Supreme Court had not been communicated to him. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that the finding in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage . It awarded him 2,906.98 Euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (2)     Laine v. France (no. 41476/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Jacques Laine, a French national, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time), about the length of court-ordered   liquidation proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted almost 16 years and nine months.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 50,155 for pecuniary damage, EUR 7,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (3)     Tsirikakis v. Greece (no. 46355/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The applicants, Anastasios and Georgios Tsirikakis, are both Greek nationals. The case concerns the expropriation of the their land to build a sewage treatment plant. They claim that the entirety of their 60,000 m² island - rather than the 10,366 m² in the expropriation application - was used to construct, among other things, sewage works and that large quantities of sludge were produced by the plant. They complained about the length of the proceedings concerning their right to receive compensation, which has lasted more than 13 years and three months and is still pending. They also complained of a violation of their right to respect for their property. They relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and reserved the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) to a later date. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (4)     Gollner v. Austria (no. 49455/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Maria Gollner, an Austrian national, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of civil proceedings which lasted eight years and three-and-a-half months, including one year when the proceedings were discontinued, concerning a maintenance application against her husband.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 9,447.66 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,446.73 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (5)     Maurer v. Austria (no. 50110/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Herbert Maurer, an Austrian national, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, of the length of criminal proceedings against him for defamation, which lasted four years and almost 11 months for two levels of jurisdiction.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 3,633.72 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,180.23 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   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.