CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 4 avril 2000

.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 } .s6AC0F6D4 { width:22.13pt; display:inline-block } .s98A7B623 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s9AFF8173 { width:17.68pt; display:inline-block } .sC5953CC6 { width:4.8pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s8A58C393 { width:4.86pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6F541D0D { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:2.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sF1C1F16C { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:13.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sB3842676 { width:16.27pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sC2A133BD { width:20.89pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCC843BA8 { width:25.33pt; display:inline-block } .s86122D5F { width:27.25pt; display:inline-block } .s32912412 { width:35.59pt; display:inline-block } .s181654F6 { width:18.88pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .s147A4AAD { width:18pt; display:inline-block } .s8AFB426F { width:32.67pt; display:inline-block } .s68BA453A { width:7.99pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS         244   4.4.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   + JUDGMENTS     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing an Article 41 Grand Chamber judgment (just satisfaction) in the case of Papachelas v. Greece . It has also notified in writing the following six chamber judgments concerning Austria, Greece, Poland, Slovakia and the United Kingdom. All the judgments except Dewicka v. Poland are final.     Grand Chamber Judgment     1)   Papachelas v. Greece (Application number 31423/96)             Art. 41   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement [1] in which the applicants are to be paid 74,880,000 drachmas (GRD) with 6% interest from September 1992. (The judgment exists in English and French.)   The applicants, Aristomenis Papachelas and Eugène Papachelas, are Greek nationals living in Athens who were born in 1926 and 1933 respectively. On 9 January 1998 the Greek State expropriated 8,402 square metres of their land to build a new major road. However, they received compensation for only 6,962 sq. m, in accordance with section 1 (3) of Law No. 653/1977 whereby, on the building of new major roads, owners of expropriated adjoining land are deemed to benefit and are therefore required to contribute to the costs. The applicants complained that their case was not heard within a reasonable time, as required by Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (right to property), they were deprived of their possessions without receiving full and fair compensation.                     Chamber Judgments   Section 1   2)   Academy Trading Ltd and Others v. Greece (No.30342/96)            Violation Art. 6 § 1 The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the excessive length of the relevant proceedings (nine years, seven months and ten days), but, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the fairness of the proceedings before an impartial tribunal. By four votes to three the Court held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction and awarded the applicants a total of 3,000,000 GRD for costs and expenses. (Judgment in English.)   The applicants are six shipping companies: Academy Trading Ltd ., Intercontinental Maritime Ltd ., Aaron Maritime Ltd ., Evie Navigation Co. Ltd ., T.C. Trading Company Ltd . and Andros Trading Ltd, all under the ownership of G.T. a Greek-American shipowner. They were guarantors of a $14.8 million loan to G.T. by bank C. in 1977 and claim that, due to a shipping crisis, they were unable to meet their loan repayments. In 1979, after being refused financial help by bank C., they were obliged to sell two ships at below their insured and actual value to another client of the bank, which had been given generous financing terms. Eventually G.T’s business went bankrupt and the bank took over management of his ships.   On 21 January 1982 the applicants brought an action for damages against the bank for contravening business morality under the Greek Civil Code. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the applicants, but its decision was overturned by the Court of Cassation. Proceedings lasted until 30 June 1995 when the Court of Cassation dismissed a further appeal by the applicants.   They invoked Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of the proceedings and the partiality of the Court of Cassation. A public hearing on the case was held by the European Court of Human Rights on 19 October 1999.     Section 2   3)   Witold Litwa v. Poland (No.26629/95)                  Violation Art. 5 § 1   The Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   1   (e) (right to liberty and security) in that the detention of Witold Litwa in a sobering-up centre was not lawful. The applicant was awarded 8,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) for non-pecuniary damage and 15,000 PLN less 13,174 French francs for costs and expenses. (Judgment in English.)   The Court considered that the detention of “alcoholics” permitted under Article 5 § 1 (e) was not aimed at people in a clinical state of alcoholism but those whose behaviour under the influence of alcohol, whether or not they had been diagnosed as alcoholic, posed a threat to the public or themselves.   The Court had serious doubts that the applicant had posed such a threat, doubts which were reinforced by the trivial factual basis for his detention and the fact that he is almost blind. Also, no consideration appeared to have been given to the alternative measures for dealing with intoxicated people permitted under Polish law (Section 40 of the Law of 26 October 1982). These include being taken home or to a public-care establishment; detention in a sobering-up centre being the most extreme option.   Mr Litwa, a Polish national born in 1946 and living in Kraków (Poland), had been arrested by police officers in a post office on 5 May 1994, following a complaint by postal clerks that he was drunk and behaving offensively.   Believing the applicant to be under the influence of alcohol, the policemen took him to a “sobering up centre”, an establishment in which Polish law permits an intoxicated person to be placed for a period not exceeding 24 hours.   A doctor who examined the applicant in the centre assessed him as being “moderately intoxicated” and decided that his state justified his confinement in the centre for six hours.   No blood or breath tests were carried out before, during or after that examination.   After six hours and thirty minutes the applicant was permitted to leave the centre, subject to payment of fees for his transportation and lodging there. Later, the applicant sued the State Treasury for damages “for an unlawful attack by State officials and theft of personal possessions”.   His claim was deemed to be an action for compensation for manifestly unjustified arrest and detention.   It was finally dismissed by the Kraków Court of Appeal on 25 January 1995.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1. A hearing was held by the European Court of Human Rights on 7 October 1999.     4)   I.S. v. Slovakia (No. 25006/94)                    Violation Art. 6 § 1   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). (Judgment in English.) I.S., a Slovak national born in 1956 and living in Žilina (Slovakia), complained about the length of the civil proceedings concerning his action for restitution of land, which lasted seven years, two months and 13 days. No claim for just satisfaction was submitted.     Section 3   5)   Pfleger v. Austria (No. 27648/95)                    Friendly settlement   The Court has struck out the case following a friendly settlement in which the applicants, Willibald and Hermine Pfleger, both Austrian nationals living in Schindlau and born in 1932 and 1933 rspectively, are to be paid a total of 40,000 Austrian schillings for any damage and costs. (Judgment in English.)   In agricultural land consolidation proceedings ( Zusammenlegungsverfahren ) involving the applicants’ land, the Provincial Land Reform Board ( Landes-agrarsenat ) and the Supreme Land Reform Board ( Oberster Agrarsenat ) both sat in private when hearing the applicants’ appeals challenging the land consolidation plan and did not deliver their decisions in public. The Administrative Court ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) also refused the applicants’ request for a public hearing. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 about the lack of a public hearing and lack of public delivery of decisions in their proceedings.   6)   Paul Walsh v. United Kingdom (No. 33744/96)                Striking out   The case has been struck out after the applicant, Paul Walsh, a British national born in 1964 and currently in HM Prison Kingston, withdrew his complaints. He had complained principally under Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security) about the delay in reviewing the lawfulness of his continued detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure. (Judgment in English.)     Section 4   7)   Dewicka v. Poland [2] (No. 38670/97)                   Violation Art. 6 § 1   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded Janina Dewicka, a Polish national born in 1911 and living in Wrocław (Poland) 15,000 PLN for non-pecuniary damage. (Judgment in English.) She had complained about the excessive length of her civil proceedings, which lasted at least five years and nine months.     ***   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) 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] In its principal judgment in the case (25 March 1999), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of the application of section 1 (3) of Law No. 653/1977, but that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 regarding the amount of compensation or of Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of the proceedings.   The applicants were awarded 2,000,000 GRD for costs and expenses. [2] 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.