CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 juillet 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 } .s72BA45F0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:95%; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6D0AE0DF { width:18.57pt; display:inline-block } .s41CEC556 { width:35.84pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s56B72C93 { width:17.67pt; display:inline-block } .s322C9A7B { width:18.29pt; 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 } .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     534   18.7.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing chamber judgments in the following cases:   1)   Jaegert v. France (application no. 29827/96)                  Struck out   Jean-Georges Jaegert, a French national and retired police inspector, claimed, under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, that the proceedings before the Conseil d’Etat relating to his pension were unfair. In particular, he complained that he was not informed of the hearing date. The European Court of Human Rights has agreed to strike out the case after receiving a letter from the applicant expressing his desire not to pursue his case. The judgment exists only in French.   2)   S.M. v. France [1] 1 (no. 41453/98)                                    Violation Article 6 § 1   S.M., a French national and a retired civil servant, complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of administrative proceedings relating to her pension, which lasted nearly thirteen years. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded her 40,000 French francs (FRF) for non-pecuniary damage. Judgment in French.   3)   Droulez v. France (no. 41860/98)                Friendly settlement   Michel Droulez, a French national, complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the civil proceedings to which he was a party involving the repayment of a loan, which lasted approximately six years and two months. The Court has agreed to strike out the case following a friendly settlement in which Mr Droulez is to be paid 30,000 FRF. Judgment in French.     ***   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 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.