CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 octobre 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBEEF6FF3 { width:53.42pt; display:inline-block } .s913F377E { width:252.91pt; display:inline-block } .s633F29E0 { width:192.85pt; display:inline-block } .s471A04A2 { width:71.5pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     462   1.10.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Romania, Italy and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final [1] :   Section 2   (1)     Baragan v. Romania (application no. 33627/96)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Paun Baragan was a Romanian national who was born in 1903 and lived in Bucharest. Following his death on 22 December 1997, his heir Emil Mihai Baragan stated that he wished to pursue the proceedings before the Court.   A flat in Bucharest which the applicant had purchased in 1949 was nationalised by the State in 1950, pursuant to decree number 92/1950. In 1993 he brought an action for restitution of the property. By a judgment of 26 October 1993 the court of first instance made an order for the property to be returned to the applicant, who, as a civil servant at the material time, belonged to a class of persons that was excluded from the scope of the nationalisation decree. No appeal was lodged against the judgment, which became final and unappealable.   On 14 May 1996 the Supreme Court of Justice set aside the judgment on the ground that the courts had no jurisdiction to hear cases concerning the application of the nationalisation decree and that the applicant had not established title to the property. According to information provided by the applicant, the State then sold the property to a third party.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights of the Supreme Court of Justice’s refusal to accept that the courts had jurisdiction to decide claims for restitution. He also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions had been infringed.   The Court found that by setting aside a final judgment the Supreme Court of Justice had contravened the principle of legal certainty and thereby violated the applicant’s right to a fair hearing. It further held that the Supreme Court of Justice’s ruling that the courts had no jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s claim for the restitution of his property was in itself contrary to the right of access to a court.   The Court consequently held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on the ground that the applicant had been denied a fair hearing and access to a court.   The Court pointed out that the applicant’s right of property had been established by a final, irreversible judgment. The effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice had been to deprive him of his property for more than five years without compensation reflecting the true value of the property. It therefore considered that the requisite fair balance had been upset and the applicant had borne and continued to bear an excessive and individual burden.   The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and ruled that Romania must return the property to Mr Emil Bihai Baragan within three months from the date its judgment became final or pay him 25,000 euros (EUR) in default for pecuniary damage. It also awarded EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,830 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Section 4   (2)     Agatone v. Italy (no. 36255/97)       Struck out Margherita Agatone is an Italian national who was born in 1932 and lives in London.   In 1983 she purchased a house in Albissola Marina built in breach of the applicable town planning regulations. She sued the builder and asked the local authority to allow her to remedy the breaches.   The requisite steps to remedy the breaches were completed in October 2000 and the applicant was issued with a certificate that the property was fit for habitation. She did not inform the European Court of Human Rights until July 2002, although her application had been declared admissible on 20 November 2001.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (protection of property) the applicant complained that she had been prevented from living in the property by the dispute with the builder.   The Court noted that the application had been declared admissible on the basis that the applicant’s home had not been certified fit for habitation. However, a certificate had in fact been issued and served on the applicant in October 2000. The Court considered that by her silence on the subject the applicant intended to discontinue the proceedings, the problem that had given rise to her application having been resolved internally.   Accordingly, the Court decided to strike the case out of the list. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (3)     Rice v. the United Kingdom (no. 65905/01)       Friendly settlement The applicant, Alan John Rice, a British national, was born in 1957 and lives in Bebington. He and his wife were married in 1980 and had one child, born in 1991. The applicant’s wife died on 13 February 2000.   In June 2000 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 on 26 June 2000 that his claim was invalid because the regulations governing the payment of widows’ benefits were specific to women. He was told that he had no right of appeal since his claim had not been considered.   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 United Kingdom social security and tax legislation discriminated against him on grounds of sex, in breach of Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, 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 5,710.32 pounds sterling 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.