CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 24 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .s9E7DF94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .sCBCBF091 { width:21.9pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; 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 } .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     526   24.10.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Italy     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final: [1]   Section 1   The applicants in the following three 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 all relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights whereas Biffoni v. Italy and Sartorelli v. Italy also relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time).   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 judgments are available only in English).   (1)     F. F. v. Italy (application no. 31928/96) EUR 6,000 (2)     Biffoni v. Italy (no. 46079/99) EUR 7,500 (3)     Sartorelli v. Italy (no. 47895/99) EUR 12,000   (4)     Messina v. Italy (no. 3) (no. 33993/96)           Violation Article 8   Antonio Messina is an Italian lawyer who was born in 1946 and is currently in Trapani Prison.   On 21 December 1992 the Marsala District Court sentenced the applicant to seven years’ imprisonment for unlawful possession of and trafficking in drugs, with the aggravating circumstance of membership of a criminal organisation. His sentence was reduced to five years by the Palermo Court of Appeal, which acquitted him of two of the three charges against him.   During the applicant’s imprisonment, four letters he had sent to the European Commission of Human Rights arrived with stamps indicating that they had been censored by the prison authorities. Two letters from the Commission to the applicant also arrived with censors’ stamps.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complained of the monitoring of his correspondence by the prison authorities.   The Court considered that there had been “interference by a public authority” with the applicant’s exercise of his right to respect for his correspondence. Although section 18 of Law no. 354 of 26 July 1975 concerned the monitoring of detainees’ correspondence, the Court reiterated that that provision did not lay down rules on either the period of validity of measures for monitoring correspondence or the reasons which might warrant them, and did not indicate with sufficient clarity the scope and manner of exercise of the discretion conferred on the relevant authorities in that sphere.   The Court accordingly considered that the interference with the applicant’s exercise of his right to respect for his correspondence had not been “in accordance with the law”, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8. It further held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction.   (The judgment is in French only.)   ***   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: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (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.