CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 18 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 } .s9E2008CC { width:228.24pt; display:inline-block } .sC0DFAA08 { width:116.78pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s50E127FF { width:141.45pt; display:inline-block } .sDA358BA6 { width:130.81pt; display:inline-block } .sCEA5E46A { width:100.14pt; 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     205   18.4.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Greece and Portugal   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments of which only Examiliotis v. Greece is final [1] :   SECTION 1   (1)     Ouzounis and others v. Greece (application no. 49144/99)   No violation Article 6 § 1     No violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Georgios Ouzounis and 33 other applicants, all Greek nationals, complained about the Greek authorities’ refusal to comply with a decision of the Athens Administrative Court granting them the right to an increase in their pensions.   The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (2)     Examiliotis v. Greece (no. 52538/99)   Friendly settlement Dimitrios Examiliotis is a Greek national who was born in 1936 and lives in Athens. On 23   May 1991 he brought an action in damages against the State before the Athens Administrative Court. Those proceedings are currently pending before the Council of State.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the unreasonable length of the administrative proceedings (which have lasted more than ten years).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement under which he is to be paid 7,337 euros to cover both his damage and costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   FORMER SECTION 2   (3)     Malama v. Greece (no. 43622/98)     Just satisfaction The case concerns the expropriation of 942,250 square metres of land by the Greek State in 1923. The proceedings concerning compensation began in 1928 and continued until 1958, but without any final judgment. They were revived in 1963 by the applicant’s mother and aunt and ended with a judgment of the Court of Cassation on 18 June 1996. On 12 September 1997 the Athens Court of First Instance declared that the applicant, Eleni Malama, a Greek national, was entitled to 3/8 of the compensation assessed by the Greek courts. However, the national authorities delayed in making payment. On 21 April 1999 the compensation, as assessed by a court of appeal in 1993, was paid into the applicant’s bank account.   Ms Malama complained of the Greek authorities’ refusal to comply with the judgments of the Greek courts fixing the compensation payable and of the length of the proceedings. Following payment of the compensation in April 1999, she complained that the sum she received amounted to only 1.53% of the value of the expropriated land.   In its principal judgment of 1 March 2001, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. With regard to Article 6 § 1, it held that it was unnecessary to examine the applicant’s complaints concerning the fairness of the proceedings and that it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings, as it had been lodged out of time. The Court further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   In today’s Article 41 judgment the Court decided unanimously to award the applicant 487,060 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage, EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 31,940 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (4)     Logothetis v. Greece (no. 46352/99)   Just satisfaction Ioannis Logothetis, a Greek national, born in 1935, complained about the refusal by the Greek administration to comply with a decision of the Auditor General’s Department granting him a supplementary pension.   In its principal judgment of 12 April 2001, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded him 500,000 Greek drachmas for costs and expenses. The Court also decided, unanimously, to reserve the question of just satisfaction (Article 41).   In today’s Article 41 judgment the Court decided unanimously to award the applicant EUR   32,320 for pecuniary damage, EUR 2,935 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,468 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   SECTION 3   (5)     Fernandes v. Portugal (no. 47459/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 João Fernandes, a Portuguese national, brought possession proceedings in June 1992 against a tenant in Loures District Court. The warrant for possession was issued in March 1999 and executed in July of that year. The proceedings are still pending before the domestic courts, with regard to the claim for unpaid rent arrears. The applicant complained of the length of the proceedings (more than nine years and nine months).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. (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.