CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 19 décembre 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6D70EBE { width:150.87pt; display:inline-block } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s456A1073 { height:23pt } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sB8F4B0A7 { height:16.25pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9538EC41 { height:0pt } .sC46E99E7 { width:255.2pt } .s9E589B32 { width:85.05pt } .s7329D7B5 { width:1.7pt } .s40E5CC2 { width:76.25pt } .s26507CD6 { width:70.9pt } .sF290343F { width:339.76pt; display:inline-block } .s7A5A2521 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s140F902B { width:352.22pt; display:inline-block } .sE5331F9C { width:82.78pt; display:inline-block } .s131AFC18 { width:348.91pt; display:inline-block } .s672BE378 { width:310.89pt; 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 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     650   19.12.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar     CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Italy, Poland and Portugal     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 19 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]   Section 1   The applicants in the following 17 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 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights except the cases L. and P. v. Italy and Fiorani v. Italy which only relied on Article 6 § 1 .   In the first 16 cases the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. A violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was also found unanimously in all cases except L. and P. v. Italy and Fiorani v. Italy. In the case of M.C. v. Italy a violation of both Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 was found for the second set of proceedings but not the first and third set. The case of Fiorentini Vizzini v. Italy was struck out following a friendly settlement. The Court awarded the applicants the following amounts, in euros (EUR), for any non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage, costs and expenses . (All judgments are available only in English except Zazzeri v. Italy and Auditore v. Italy , which are available only in French.)       Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1   Pecuniary damage non-pecuniary damage costs and expenses (1)     Paola Esposito v. Italy (application no. 30883/96) EUR 4356.96 EUR 8,000 - (2)     Savio v. Italy (no. 31012/96) EUR 5,300 EUR 5,000 EUR 2,000 (3)     Giagnoni and Finotello v. Italy (no. 31663/96)* EUR 4,465 EUR 9,000 EUR 1,000 (4)     M.P. v. Italy (no. 31923/96) EUR 36,532.37 - EUR 2,000 (5)     Guidi v. Italy (no. 32374/96)* EUR 500 EUR 3,000 EUR 750 (6)     M.C. v. Italy (no. 32391/96) - EUR 3,000 EUR 1,500 (7)     Sanella v. Italy (no. 32644/96) EUR 12,500 EUR 3,000 EUR 2,000 (8)     Geni Srl v. Italy (no. 32662/96) EUR 9,000 - EUR 2,000 (9)     Immobiliare Sole Srl v. Italy (no. 32766/96) EUR 11,400 - EUR 2,000 (10)     Scurci Chimenti v. Italy (no. 33227/96) EUR 4,740 EUR 10,000 - (11)     Folliero v. Italy (no. 33376/96) EUR 1,500 EUR 3,000 EUR 2,000 (12)     Fleres v. Italy (no. 34454/97) EUR 61,600 EUR 10,000 EUR 2,000 (13)     Zazzeri v. Italy (no. 35006/97) EUR 11,000 EUR 9,000 EUR 2,000 (14)     Auditore v. Italy (no. 35550/97) EUR 1,200 EUR 3,000 EUR 1,500         Violation Article 6 § 1 (15)     L. and P.   v. Italy (no. 33696/96) EUR 8,380 EUR 5,000 EUR 1,500 (16)     Fiorani v. Italy (no. 33909/96) EUR 21,000 EUR 8,000 EUR 2,000         Friendly settlement (17)     Fiorentini Vizzini v. Italy (no. 39451/98) EUR 6,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses   * to each of the applicants   Section 3   (18)     Sałapa v. Poland (no. 35489/97)   Violation Article 5 §§ 3 and 4     Violation Article 8     No violation Article 6 § 1 Marek Sałapa, a Polish national, was born in 1955. He is currently serving a prison sentence.   On 26 February 1996 the Regional Prosecutor remanded Mr Sałapa in custody on suspicion of drug trafficking and,   on 15 March 1996 Jelenia Góra Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the detention order. On 25   March 1996 and on an unknown later date the applicant’s requests for release were refused by the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor. The applicant’s detention was extended a further six times and his applications for release refused.   On 24 April 1997 the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor submitted a bill of indictment against the applicant and nine other co-accused to the Regional Court. The indictment contained a list of 20 witnesses to be interviewed and 224 items of evidence to be produced at the hearing.   The first hearing in the case was held on 17 November 1997. During this and subsequent hearings, various requests by the applicant for release were rejected and his detention was further prolonged.   On 31 May 1999 the applicant was convicted of drug trafficking and forgery of documents and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of 250,000 Polish Zlotys. He appealed unsuccessfully.   The applicant complained, in particular, under Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) that he was deprived of his liberty by a decision of the public prosecutor who was not a “judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power” and under Article 5 § 4 that the proceedings concerning his detention on remand had not been adversarial.   He also complained, under Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence), that letters from him to the European Commission of Human Rights had been intercepted by prison guards, and, under Article 6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), that the criminal proceedings against him had exceeded a reasonable time.   The European Court of Human Rights reiterated that, at the time of the events in question, the fact that a prosecutor could be regarded as an officer exercising “judicial power” failed to protect against arbitrary or unjustified deprivation of liberty. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. Reiterating that the available proceedings to review the lawfulness of detention were also inadequate, not being adversarial, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   Concerning Article 6 § 1, the Court observed that the period to be examined had lasted five years, eight months and four days. However, the case being complex and the applicant having considerably contributed to the length of the proceedings, the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.   Concerning the opening of the applicant’s correspondence, under Article 8, the Court concluded that the applicable law did not indicate with sufficient clarity the extent of the relevant authorities’ discretion in that sphere or provide guidance on how that discretion was to be exercised. Finding that the interference with the applicant’s correspondence was not “in accordance with the law”, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8.   The Court further held, unanimously, that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (19)     Lógica - Móveis de Organização, Lda v. Portugal (no. 54483/00) Friendly settlement The applicant is a private company incorporated under Portuguese law. On 4 October 1989 it lodged a complaint with the Oporto public prosecutor’s office against the manager of another company for issuing a bad cheque, and on 8 June 1990 it submitted a claim for damages. On 27   September 1999 the judge terminated the proceedings because prosecution of the offence had become time-barred. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant company complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings which it had joined as a civil party.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 3,500 euros (EUR) is to be paid to the applicant for any non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,250 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   ***   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.