CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 21 décembre 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s1BC62652 { width:23.93pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s22738A9D { width:31.89pt; display:inline-block } .s3EC7B77 { width:3.93pt; display:inline-block } .s76405F3A { width:28.6pt; display:inline-block } .sDD8BD2A9 { width:27.26pt; display:inline-block } .sD4F415E8 { width:107.42pt; display:inline-block } .s3C15F18A { width:4.5pt; display:inline-block } .sD227234A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA6CCB44F { width:21.26pt; display:inline-block } .s49D64882 { width:17.27pt; display:inline-block } .s7EC27A9A { width:9.25pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; 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 } .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     927   21.12.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING: Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom,   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 14 Chamber judgments (only Varey v. United Kingdom, Vodeničarov v. Slovakia , Jabłoński v. Poland and Montez Champalimaud, Lda v. Portugal final) [1] :       Grand Chamber   (1)     Varey v. United Kingdom (26662/95)                   Friendly settlement Joseph and Mary Varey, born in 1940 and 1944 and living in Featherstone (Staffordshire), are gypsies by birth and British nationals living in the United Kingdom. They bought land on which they intended to live in order to maintain their traditional gypsy lifestyle and culture because, they claim, planning regulations and the shortage of sites for gypsies left them no other option. However, enforcement measures were taken in respect of their occupation of their land as being in contravention of planning regulations.   They complained that: the planning and enforcement measures taken against them violated their right to respect for home, family and private life contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; that they had no effective access to court to challenge the decisions taken by the planning authorities, contrary to Article 6; and, that they had been subject to discrimination as gypsies in violation of Article 14.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 60,000 pounds sterling (GBP) is to be paid in full and final settlement of the applicants’ complaints under the Convention and GBP 15,500 for costs and expenses. The judgment is available only in English.   Section 2   (2)     Vodeničarov v. Slovakia (24530/94)                         Violation Article 5 § 4 Stefčo Vodeničarov, a Bulgarian national, alleged that that the procedure to review the lawfulness of his detention in a mental hospital did not meet the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court). The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 and awarded the applicant 60,000 Slovak korunas (SKK) for non-pecuniary damage and SKK 2,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in English)   (3)     Rinzivillo v. Italy (31543/96)             Violation Article 8 Antonio Rinzivillo, an Italian national, complained about the conditions of his detention and about certain restrictions in particular concerning the control of his correspondence. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and, by six votes to one, that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. (Judgment in French)   (4)     Wettstein v. Switzerland (33958/96)               Violation Article 6 § 1 Heinz Peter Wettstein, a Swiss national, complained of the lack of impartiality of two judges (lawyers acting as part-time judges) in the administrative proceedings to which he was a party. The judges had acted either directly as lawyers, or through their office partner, against the applicant in separate proceedings.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal) and awarded the applicant 9,000 Swiss francs for costs and expenses. (Judgment in English)   Section 4   (5)   Kliniecki v. Poland (31387/96)                    Friendly settlement Czesław Kliniecki, a Polish national, complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), about the length of criminal proceedings (started in 1992 and still pending) against him. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) is to be paid for any non-pecuniary or pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (Judgment in English)   (6)   Croke v. Ireland (33267/96)                Friendly settlement Sean Croke, an Irish national, complained, under Article 5 (right to liberty and security), in particular, about the absence of an independent and automatic review prior to or immediately after his initial detention in a psychiatric institution and about the absence of a periodic, independent and automatic review of his detention thereafter.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which an agreed (unpublished) compensatory sum is to be paid, to acknowledge the applicant’s “legitimate concerns in relation to the absence of an independent formal review of his detention under the Mental Health Acts”. The agreement also specifies that the applicant “has had regard to the expressed intention of the Government of Ireland to secure the enactment into law of the Mental Health Bill, 1999” and that the Irish State “has had particular regard to the very special circumstances of the applicant as the first Irish person to bring this important issue before the Court and the fact that the applicant’s claim was initiated prior to the publication of the Mental Health Bill, 1999”. (Judgment available only in English)       (7)   Jabłoński v. Poland (33492/96)     Violations Articles 5 §§ 3 & 4 and Article 6 § 1 Henryk Jabłoński, a Polish national, alleged, in particular: that the length of his detention on remand had been excessive (four years, nine months and seven days); that, in the proceedings before the Supreme Court concerning the prolongation of his detention beyond the statutory time-limit, the lawfulness of his detention had not been decided speedily; and, that his right to a hearing within a reasonable time had not been respected.   Taking into account three years, nine months and 27 days, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been violations of Articles 5 § 3 (right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial), Articles 5 § 4 and 6 § 1, and awarded the applicant PLN 25,000 for non-pecuniary damage and PLN 15,000 for costs and expenses (less French francs 10,000 received as legal aid from the Council of Europe). (Judgment in English)   (8)   Montez Champalimaud, Lda v. Portugal (37722/97)                 Friendly settlement A Portuguese company, Montez Champalimaud, Lda, based in Mesão Frio (Portugal),   complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to have civil rights determined within a reasonable time), about the length of the civil proceedings (which started on 3 November 1994 and were still pending on 13 January 2000) to which the company was a party. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 600,000 Portuguese escudos (PTE) is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage and PTE 250,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   (9)     Wasilewski v. Poland (32734/96)              Violation Article 6 § 1 Adam Wasilewski, a Polish national, complained about the length of his civil proceedings (lasting approximately nine years and ten months) against the insurance company Warta. Taking into consideration a period lasting seven years and seven months [2] , the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant PLN 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (Judgment in English)   Violations Article 6 § 1 In each of the following length-of-civil-proceedings cases, all concerning Italian applicants, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. (Judgments in French)   (10)     F.S. v. Italy (44471/98) (lasted about 16 years) The Court awarded ITL 36,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 2,000,000 for costs and expenses. (11)     Catania and Zuppelli v. Italy (45075/98) (17 years and two months) No request made for just satisfaction. (12)     Murru v. Italy (no. 2) (45091/98) (13 years and four months) The Court found no link had been demonstrated between the length of the proceedings and the just satisfaction for pecuniary damage claimed by the applicant. Therefore, no award for just satisfaction was made. (13)     Murru v. Italy (no. 3) (45095/98) (11 years and four months) No request made for just satisfaction. (14)     Franchina v. Italy (46529/99)   (15 years and seven months, still pending) Awarded ITL 48,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   ***   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)   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 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.   [2] From 1 May 1993, when Poland recognised the right of individual petition.