CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 11 avril 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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA098D6C2 { width:232.91pt; display:inline-block } .sC38A71A9 { width:66.1pt; display:inline-block } .s2188112C { width:143.48pt; display:inline-block } .sD2EE1D88 { width:36.79pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sE546A0A1 { width:140.79pt; display:inline-block } .sA701324E { width:88.8pt; display:inline-block } .s8F376768 { width:31.47pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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     196   11.4.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING France, Greece and Italy   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments, of which only Mercuri v. Italy is final [1] :   SECTION 1   (1)     Smokovitis and Others v. Greece (application no. 46356/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1          Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Twenty-four teachers on temporary contracts at the Piraeus Polytechnic College took legal proceedings against their employer in 1992 seeking payment of a research allowance granted by the relevant Ministry. When they won their case, the Polytechnic appealed. The Court of Appeal applied retrospectively a law which the Greek parliament had enacted in August 1994, which made it clear that only permanent staff were entitled to the allowance. An appeal by the applicants on points of law was dismissed by the Court of Cassation.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time), the applicants complained that they had not had a fair hearing on account of parliament’s intervention in the proceedings between themselves and the Polytechnic. They further complained that enactment of the new legislation had made their action inadmissible, thus infringing their right to the protection of property as guaranteed by Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded each applicant between 1,761 euros (EUR)   and EUR   617 for pecuniary damage, EUR 2,900 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 200 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (2)     Sakellaropoulos v. Greece (no. 46806/99)       Violation Article 6 § 1 Yeoryios Sakellaropoulos, a Greek national who inherited a fluoride mine, challenged a decision taken by the Minister for Industry to withdraw his operating licence. Relying on Article 6 § 1, he alleged that the proceedings to which he was a party had been excessively lengthy (11 years, 10 months and 19 days for three levels of jurisdiction).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (3)     Mercuri v. Italy (no. 47247/99)       Friendly settlement Pasquale Mercuri, an Italian national born in 1963 and resident in Galatro, was acquitted of possessing drugs with intent to supply. He asked the Rome Court of Appeal to award him compensation for the time he had spent in detention pending the trial which had resulted in his acquittal and obtained on that account ten million Italian lire. The Court of Cassation upheld an appeal by State Counsel, setting aside the impugned decision without remitting the case on the ground that the application to the Court of Appeal had been inadmissible as it had not complied with the rules as to form.   The applicant complained, under Article 6 in particular (right to a fair hearing), that the proceedings had been unfair.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to be paid 14,000,000 Italian lire for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage he sustained and for costs and expenses (the judgment is available only in French).   (4)     Hatzitakis v. Greece (no. 48392/99)   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Christos Hatzitakis, a Greek national born in 1938 and resident in Thessaloniki, owned a plot of land in the municipality of Perea which occupied part of a site where it was planned to build a radar installation for Thessaloniki airport. The land was expropriated and all the applicant’s appeals against the decision were dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complained of the procedure in the Supreme Administrative Court, which had prevented him from mounting an effective challenge to the public interest in the expropriation, and of the fact that it had been impossible for him to obtain the amount of compensation for the expropriation that he had been awarded by the courts.   The Court noted that the applicant had been deprived of his property, and that the expropriation of his land had pursued a legitimate aim in that it was in accordance with the general interest. It noted that in February 1998 he had deposited the title deeds for his land with the State Immovable Property Registry in order to obtain recognition of his entitlement to compensation, which was not forthcoming until September 2001. The Court observed that as there was no Land Registry covering that region of Greece the authorities had been unable to give an immediate answer to the question whether the State had any property rights over the land, but noted that the applicant had to make a number of requests to the State Immovable Property Registry asking it to expedite the proceedings and even to apply to the Supreme Administrative Court for judicial review of the authorities’ failure to act.   Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant 34,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage, EUR   10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,700 for costs and expenses (the judgment is available only in French). (5)     AEPI v. Greece (no. 48679/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 In 1997 AEPI (the Greek Society for the Protection of Royalties), set up in 1930, obtained the Ministry of Culture’s approval to administer and protect financial rights entrusted to it by authors.   Challenging the Athens Criminal Court’s interpretation of Law no. 2121/1993 in refusing to allow it to join criminal proceedings as a civil party, AEPI asked Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation to lodge an appeal on points of law against the judgment in question. That appeal was dismissed as being out of time. According to the applicant company, during 1996 and 1997, two years which were largely taken up by the period which elapsed between its application for approval and the date when approval was given, more than 8,000 companies refused to pay royalties, but following the judgment of the Court of Cassation it was obliged to abandon criminal proceedings against a number of defaulters.   The applicant company alleged that it was not indicated in the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the time allowed for appeals on points of law began to run on the date of delivery of the impugned judgment and complained of a violation of Article 6 § 1.   In domestic law the time allowed for an appeal to the Court of Cassation by State Counsel was 30   days from delivery of the impugned judgment, but if no appeal on the facts lay against it time began to run only from the date when the decision was finalised. The Court noted that an appeal did lie against the judgment in question, but the applicant company wished to raise not points of fact but legal points arising from the reasoning of the judgment, so that in order to prepare its submissions to the Court of Cassation it needed the full text. The Court further noted that State Counsel, through whom the applicant company submitted the appeal, was perfectly familiar with the procedural aspects of his duties and did not refuse to lodge it.   Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant company 20,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 11,000 for costs and expenses (the judgment is available only in French).   (6)     Angelopoulos v. Greece (no. 49215/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Nikolaos and Anastasia Angelopoulos, both Greek nationals, challenged expropriation proceedings against them. Relying on Article 6 § 1, they complained that the proceedings to which they were parties and which are still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court and the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal have been excessively lengthy (eight years and ten months and seven years and ten months to date respectively).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicants EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   SECTION 3   (7)     Lallement v. France (no. 46044/99)     Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Henri Lallement, a French national born in 1954 and resident in Gué-d’Hossus (France), is a farmer. He took over the family farm, which was run mainly as a dairy business, from his father. The applicant, his dependent mother, his brother, who worked on the farm as a registered family assistant, and the latter’s two children lived off the income from the farm. By an order of 23 March 1993 the expropriations judge of the département of Ardennes declared approximately 30% of the land on Mr   Lallement’s farm expropriated in the public interest. The land concerned represented about 60% of the area given over to milk production. The amount of the compensation paid to the applicant was fixed by the expropriations judge in a judgment of 11 July 1995. That judgment was upheld by the Expropriations Division of the Rheims Court of Appeal on 7 March 1997. In a judgment of 30   June 1998 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complained that the expropriation had deprived him of his source of income and that the compensation paid to him had not covered that specific loss.   The Court noted that the expropriation complained of had made it financially unviable for the applicant to continue to farm the remaining portion of his land and had thus led to the loss of his source of income. Noting that the compensation paid had not specifically covered that loss, the Court held that it did not bear a reasonable relation to the value of the expropriated property and concluded by five votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Applying Article 41 of the Convention, the court awarded the applicant 15,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 15,119.89 for costs and expenses; it reserved the question of the applicant’s claim for pecuniary damage in part, dismissing the remainder (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.