CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 26 mars 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; display:inline-block } .s33401DB6 { width:336.9pt; display:inline-block } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s9FA756B { height:53.55pt } .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 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s4C30776 { height:53.6pt } .s394590EB { width:82.13pt; display:inline-block } .sEC65736C { width:318.89pt; display:inline-block } .s70AA3140 { width:328.89pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sEED3C1C2 { width:187.5pt; display:inline-block } .s5135D418 { width:80.79pt; display:inline-block } .s82BAEC71 { width:42.84pt; 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     167   26.3.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING France, Lithuania, Turkey and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 10 Chamber judgments of which only the friendly settlements are final [1] :   SECTION 2   In the following six French cases, the applicants complained about the length of the civil proceedings (indicated in brackets) to which they were parties. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, claiming their civil rights were not decided within a reasonable time.     Violation Article 6 § 1 In cases 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded each applicant the following amounts in euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.         Friendly settlement In Leboeuf v. France the case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the amount indicated is to be paid as a global sum for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French).     Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses (1)     Moullet v. France (application no. 44485/98) (more than 13 years and seven months and still pending on 26 March 2002 for several levels of jurisdiction)   EUR 7,000 EUR 38.11 (2)     Leboeuf v. France (no. 47194/99) (just over eight years and still pending on 26 March 2002)   global sum of EUR 3,811.23 (3)     Lutz v. France (no. 48215/99) (nine years and more than two months and six years and more than four months for the first and second set of proceedings respectively)   EUR 6,097.96 EUR 990.92 (4)     Grand v. France (no. 50996/99) (five years and seven days and four years, three months and seven days for the first and second set of proceedings respectively)   EUR 6,500   (5)     Baillard v. France (no. 51575/99) (almost seven years, five months and 18 days for two levels of jurisdiction and the examination of a previous request)   EUR 7,000   (6)     Comabat v. France (no. 51818/99) (almost seven years for two levels of jurisdiction and the examination of a previous request)   EUR 6,000 EUR 1,103.12   (7)     Butkevičius v. Lithuania (no.   48297/99)     Violation Article 5 § 1       Violation Article 5 § 4   Violation Article 6 § 2 Audrius Butkevičius, a Lithuanian national, was the Minister of Defence and a Member of the Seimas (Parliament) from 1996 to 2000. On 12 August 1997 the applicant was apprehended in a hotel lobby by the security intelligence and the prosecuting authorities while accepting an envelope containing 15,000 United States dollars (USD) from KK, a senior executive of an oil company. KK had previously informed the intelligence authorities that the applicant had requested 300,000 USD for his assistance in obtaining the discontinuance of criminal proceedings concerning the company’s vast debts.   On 14 August 1997 the Prosecutor General requested the Seimas to permit the institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant. On   19   August 1997 the Seimas agreed. On 20 August 1997 criminal proceedings were instituted and on 14 October 1997 the applicant was charged with attempting to obtain property by deception. The Prosecutor General requested permission from the Seimas to detain the applicant who was duly detained on remand. He was eventually found guilty of attempting to obtain property by deception and sentenced to five years and six months imprisonment, a 50,000 Lithuanian litai fine and confiscation of half of his property.   He   alleged, in particular, that his remand in custody from 30 November to 8 December 1997, and from 31 December 1997 to 8 January 1998, had been unlawful, that he had not been able to take court proceedings to contest the lawfulness of the detention relying on Article 5 §§ 1 (right to liberty and security) and 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court). He also alleged that certain statements of the Prosecutor General and the Chairman of the Seimas published in the media had breached Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of the Convention.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 4 and Article 6 § 2 and awarded the applicant EUR 5,700 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,900 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   SECTION 4   (8)     Haran v. Turkey (no. 25754/94)   Striking out The applicant lived in the province of Diyarbakır. He alleged, in particular, that his son was unlawfully killed by the Turkish security forces in May 1994, following operations in the area. He alleged a violation of Articles 2, 3, 6 and 14 of the Convention on account of his son’s death.   The case has been struck out in the light of a declaration by the Government and their agreement to pay 80,000 pounds Sterling (GBP) inclusive of costs and expenses to the applicant on an ex gratia basis. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (9)     Erat and Sağlam v. Turkey (no. 30492/96)     Friendly settlement On 27 February 1995 the first applicant and on 8 March 1995 the second applicant were taken into custody in Istanbul by the police officers from the Istanbul Anti-Terrorist Branch ( Terörle Mücadele Şube Müdürlüğü ). Both applicants complain under Article 3 that they were severely tortured while in police custody.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 150,000 French francs (FRF) inclusive of costs and expenses is to be paid to the applicant on an ex gratia basis. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (10)     Loffelman v. the United Kingdom (no. 44585/98)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Joseph M. Loffelman, a British national, married in 1987 and had two children, born in 1988 and 1990. His wife died in 1998, leaving him as the administrator of her estate.   The applicant’s wife was employed from 1976, most recently as a receptionist, and thus contributed to the joint income of the marriage. She paid full social security contributions as an employed earner until her death. The applicant, a lorry driver, continues in full-time work and has to meet the expense of childcare from the existing family income.   In May 1998 the applicant applied for social security benefits equivalent to those to which a widow   - whose husband had died in similar circumstances to his wife - would have been entitled, namely a Widow’s Payment and a Widowed Mother’s Allowance, payable under the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992. He was informed that his claim was invalid because the regulations governing the payment of widows’ benefits were specific to women. An appeal against such a decision would be bound to fail given that no social security benefits are payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.   A widow in a similar situation could claim Widow’s Payment and Widowed Mother’s Allowance, which are payable regardless of income and savings. He would also have received a one-off Widow’s Payment of GBP   1,000.   On 9 April 2001 the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 came into force, making bereavement benefits available to both men and women.   The applicant complained that British social security and tax legislation discriminated against him on grounds of sex, in breach of Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination), taken in conjunction with both Article 8 (right to respect for family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which GBP 19,744.53 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, 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.