CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 août 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s78179214 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:95% } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2B794F18 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:95% } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s92FB4F65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:95%; font-size:11pt } .s72BA45F0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:95%; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s6D0AE0DF { width:18.57pt; display:inline-block } .sA75C8BC1 { width:101.59pt; display:inline-block } .s21431FEE { width:169.45pt; display:inline-block } .s2B02F1FB { width:141.31pt; display:inline-block } .s4875A356 { width:122.42pt; display:inline-block } .s4B60B79F { width:121.78pt; display:inline-block } .sB027FC50 { width:133.37pt; display:inline-block } .sAA3441E6 { width:160.91pt; display:inline-block } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s6BFAA052 { width:21.28pt; display:inline-block } .s97038F6C { width:19.5pt; display:inline-block } .sDE095A02 { width:32.94pt; display:inline-block } .s1C79B3AB { width:10.33pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     561   2.8.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING CYPRUS AND FRANCE     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing seven chamber judgments in the following cases (only Satonnet v. France is final [1] ):   1)   Satonnet v. France (application no. 30412/96)   Violation Article 6 §   1   Michel Satonnet, a French national, complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to have civil rights decided within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights that the administrative proceedings to which he was a party, which began on 6 December 1982 and are still pending, have lasted about 17-and-a-half years. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   § 1 of the Convention and awarded Mr Satonnet 70,000 French francs (FRF) for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 10,600 for costs and expenses. The judgment exists only in French.   2)   Ikanga v. France (no. 32675/96)   Violation Article 6 §   1   Mponga Ikanga, a national of the Republic of the Congo, complained, under Article 6 § 1, that the criminal proceedings against him had not been heard within a reasonable time. The proceedings started no later than 23 June 1994 and are still pending after more than six years. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded Mr Ikanga FRF 30,000 for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 1,500 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   3)   Cherakrak v. France (no. 34075/96)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Djamel Cherakrak, a French national, complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of criminal proceedings against him, which lasted over four years and nine months. The Court held unanimously   that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. (Judgment in French)   4)   Bertin-Mourot v. France (no. 36343/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Philippe Bertin-Mourot, a French national, complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of criminal   proceedings against him, which lasted 14 years and six months. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded Mr Bertin-Pourot FRF 60,000 for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 28,854 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)     5)   Lambourdière v. France (no. 37387/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Rodolphe Lambourdière, a French national, complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the administrative proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted 12 years and two months. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded Mr Lambourdièr FRF 50,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (Judgment in French)   6)   Deschamps v. France (no. 37925/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Alain Deschamps, a French national, complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of administrative proceedings to which he was a party, which have lasted more than 9 years and are still pending. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded Mr Deschamps FRF   50,000 for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 11,620 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   7)   Louka v. Cyprus (no. 42946/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Maro Louka, a Cypriot national, complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of civil proceedings to which she was a party, which lasted 11 years and almost eight months. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded Ms Louka 4,500 Cypriot pounds for non-pecuniary damage and CYP 1,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in English)     ***   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] 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.