CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 30 novembre 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .s8242CF8E { width:39.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     679   30.11.1999     Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENTS IN THE CASES OF BAGHLI v. FRANCE LUGHOFER v. AUSTRIA and FAULKNER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM     The following three chamber judgments [1] have today [2] been notified in writing by the European Court of Human Rights.   1) Baghli v. France (Section 3) (application no. 34374/97)   The Court has found no violation of the European Convention on Human Rights in the case of Baghli v. France (by five votes to two). Mohamed Baghli, an Algerian national, was excluded from French territory for ten years as part of his sentence for drug trafficking in 1991. He has family in France and complained of a violation of his right to respect for his family life, guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention.   The Court held a public hearing on the merits of the case on 5 October 1999.   The judgment exists only in French.     2) Lughofer v. Austria (Section 3) (no. 22811/93)   The Court has found (unanimously) a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) in the case of Lughofer v. Austria and ordered the government to pay 30,965.42 Austrian schillings for legal costs and expenses to the applicants, Ernst and Anna Lughofer, both Austrian nationals, who had complained about the lack of a public hearing concerning proceedings relating to land consolidation.   The judgment exists only in English. 3) Faulkner v. the United Kingdom (Section 3) (no. 30308/96)   The Court has struck out the case of Faulkner v. the United Kingdom, following a friendly settlement involving the payment of £6,000 in compensation to the applicant and £14,235.77 in costs. Ian Faulkner, a British national, had complained about the lack of legal aid in Guernsey to pursue a civil action for false imprisonment, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The judgment exists only in English.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.dhcour.coe.fr ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92) or   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 1959 in Strasbourg 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] These judgments are not final. 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] 30 November 1999