CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 6 juin 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s12E025EB { width:117.44pt; display:inline-block } .s913F377E { width:252.91pt; display:inline-block } .s6BE65F42 { width:116.14pt; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     299   6.6.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Austria, Croatia and Greece   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments none, of which only   Majstorović v. Croatia is final: [1]   Chamber (Section 1)   (1)   Sailer v. Austria (application no. 38237/97) Violation Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 Gerhard Sailer is a German national, born in 1970 and living in St Peter am Hart. On 9 July 1995 he was involved in a road traffic accident in which his passenger was slightly injured. On 25 September 1995   Braunau District Administrative Authority ( Bezirkshauptmannschaft ) fined him 10,000 Austrian schillings (ATS), or nine days’ imprisonment in default, for driving under the influence of alcohol. He did not appeal. O n 7 January 1997, Grieskirchen District Court ( Bezirksgericht ) also convicted him of cau sing injury by negligence while under the influence of alcohol and fined him ATS 8,000 with 20 days’ imprisonment in default.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice) of the European Convention on Human Rights and that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. It awarded the applicant 4,050.48 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (2)     Katsaros v. Greece (no. 51473/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Epameinondas Katsaros, a Greek national born in 1929, lives in Thessaloniki.   In August 1979 the development plan for a district of Thessaloniki was altered so that an area of land could be set aside for the building of a school. The applicant owned a plot of land in the area affected; in September 1984 an expropriation order was made in respect of his land. However, in judgment no. 535/1993 the Thessaloniki Court of Appeal declared that the expropriation order had been revoked because no compensation had been paid to the applicant within 18 months of the publication of the decision fixing the amount due. In a judgment of 11 January 1999, the Supreme Administrative Court requested the administrative authorities to lift the restrictions on the applicant’s property rights. After a considerable delay, the administration conformed with the judgment although it continued, nonetheless, to treat the land in question as having been set aside for the building of the school. In December 2001 a further expropriation order was made.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained of the refusal by the relevant authorities to comply with the judgments of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Administrative Court. He also complained under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that he was unable to challenge the unlawful measures taken by the authorities against him. Lastly, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he alleged that his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions had been infringed.   After reiterating that the execution of the judgment had to be regarded as an integral part of the “trial” for the purposes of Article 6, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, owing to the authorities’ failure to comply with the judicial decisions relied on by the applicant within a reasonable time. As to the interference with the applicant’s property right, the Court noted that despite the order revoking the expropriation, the State had deprived the applicant of the peaceful possession of his property by prohibiting him from using the land in a way that might prevent the building of a school there. The Court noted that the interference was therefore unlawful. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 and upheld that it was unnecessary to examine the case under Article 13. The question of the application of Article 41 was not ready for determination. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (3)     Majstorović v. Croatia (no. 53227/99)   Friendly settlement Vinko Majstorović is a Croatian national, born in 1940 and living in Zagreb. On 10 December 1992 he lent 20,000 German Marks to V.M.M., a company in Zagreb. As the company failed to comply with its obligations under the contract, on 15 October 1993 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before Zagreb Municipal Court seeking re-payment of the loan.   It is alleged that the court did not proceed with the case due to a dispute over whether the applicant should pay court fees. Two hearings were scheduled in July 2001 but both were adjourned because either the applicant or his counsel failed to appear. The proceedings are still pending.   He relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 2,500 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of 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.