CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 7 mai 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 } .s33401DB6 { width:336.9pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB06767C6 { width:86.79pt; display:inline-block } .s92E36A16 { width:137.46pt; display:inline-block } .sF4598D18 { width:69.45pt; display:inline-block } .s6959D6CE { width:145.48pt; display:inline-block } .s87EB194D { width:149.48pt; 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 } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     251   7.5.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING France, Greece, Italy and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following ten Chamber judgments of which only the friendly settlements are final [1] :   SECTION 1   Friendly settlements The applicants in the following five Italian cases complained about their prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of their apartments and about the duration of the eviction proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which the following amounts, in Euros (EUR), are to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The first two judgments are available only in French whereas the remaining three are available only in English.)   (1)     Ferrari v. Italy (no. 35795/97) EUR 5,500 (2)     Arrivabene v. Italy (no. 35797/97) EUR 6,000 (3)     Fusco v. Italy (no. 42609/98) EUR 6,197.48 (4)     V.L. and others v. Italy (no. 44864/98) EUR 3,333.34 to the first applicant and EUR 3,333.33 to the remaining two applicants (5)     Amato Del Re v. Italy (no. 44968/98) EUR 7,230.40   (6)     Spentzouris v. Greece (no. 47891/99)       Violation Article 6 § 1 Nikolaos Spentzouris is a Greek national born in 1937 and living in Athens. Between July 1953 and May 1988 he paid contributions to various social security funds. Upon retirement he was awarded a pension which did not take into account all the contributions he had made. The applicant made unsuccessful appeals following several decisions and a hearing. Relying on Article 6 § 1, he complained about the length of administrative proceedings which lasted nine years, one month and 21 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. (The judgment is available only in English.)   SECTION 2   (7)     Ribes v. France (no. 41946/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Jean-Marie and Marie-Antoinette Ribes are French nationals who were born in 1950 and 1925 respectively and live in Perpignan. In February 1990 and June 1996 they issued two sets of proceedings in Montpellier Administrative Court concerning a dispute of burial rights. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of those proceedings, the first set having lasted seven years, two months and sixteen days for a single level of jurisdiction and the second, which is still pending, almost five years and ten months for two levels of jurisdiction.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded each of the applicants EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 152.45 for costs and expenses. The judgment is available only in French.   SECTION 3   (8)     Dede and others v. Turkey (no. 32981/96)     Violation Article 6 § 1 In January and February 1981 the applicants were arrested and placed in police custody,   accused of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary   Way). They were subsequently detained on remand, but later released pending trial. In December 1995 the convictions of two of the applicants were quashed; criminal proceedings against the other two are still pending. The applicants complained, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), about the length of criminal proceedings against them, almost 14 years, 10 months and 13 days for two of them and more than 21 years (of which the Court can only take into consideration eight years and 11 months and 15 years and two months respectively [2] ) for the other two.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded each of the applicants EUR 15,250 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,200 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.) (9)     Strangi v. Italy (no. 54286/00)       Friendly settlement Carmelo Strangi, an Italian national who was born in 1912 and lives at Gioia Tauro (Reggio de Calabre), made an application to the Audit Court in February 1989 for a reassessment of his pension entitlement. The Audit Court granted his application and its judgment was lodged with the registry in December 1999. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the length of the civil proceedings (more than ten years and nine months).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to be paid EUR 5,681.03 for any damage sustained and for costs and expenses. The judgment is available only in French.   SECTION 4   (10)     At.M . v. Italy (no. 56084/00)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Mrs At.M. was an Italian national who was born in 1919 and lived in Cagliari. In October 1982 she issued proceedings against her brother in the local court for an order to wind up her mother’s estate and a declaration that certain property sales by her mother to her brother were shams and in reality disguised gifts. The case was set down for trial in Italy on 22 October 2001. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the length of the proceedings, which by then had lasted more than nineteen years before a single level of jurisdiction.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded each of the heirs of Mrs At.M., who had died before her application was heard, EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 200 for costs and expenses. 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. [2] The period of time after 28 January 1987, the date on which Turkey recognised the right of individual petition.