CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 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 } .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 } .s527CB716 { width:104.03pt; display:inline-block } .sE5BC307F { width:164.6pt; display:inline-block } .s6C17F9C6 { width:164.57pt; display:inline-block } .s69C67B3D { width:173.13pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s41F1E7E9 { width:177.4pt; display:inline-block } .s70A66542 { width:112.61pt; display:inline-block } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s2AE76E4B { width:156.61pt; display:inline-block } .s6A8AB75D { width:181.69pt; display:inline-block } .s8CAA13F7 { width:165.19pt; display:inline-block } .sF7195C3B { width:12.45pt; display:inline-block } .sF4049091 { width:189.02pt; display:inline-block } .sF4B87B63 { width:170.07pt; display:inline-block } .s124DB41D { width:172.52pt; display:inline-block } .sB9C3A0BD { width:104.06pt; display:inline-block } .s6579C9A9 { width:177.39pt; display:inline-block } .s656CC443 { width:107.72pt; 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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     554   27.7.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING GERMANY, ITALY, POLAND AND PORTUGAL     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 16 chamber judgments in the following cases (only Talenti v. Italy and the friendly settlements are final [1] ):   1)   Pisano v. Italy (application no. 36732/97)   No violation Article 6 §§   1 and 3 (d)   Massimo Pisano, an Italian national, complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, about the fairness of criminal proceedings against him and the refusal to call a defence witness following his life imprisonment for the murder of his wife. The European Court of Human Rights held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article   6   §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgment exists only in French.   2)   Talenti v. Italy (no. 38102/97)   No ruling on the merits   Pier Francesco Talenti, an American national, who died in 1997, complained, among other things, under Article 6 § 1, that his case had not been heard within a reasonable time. The Court held unanimously that it could not deal with the merits of the case because the case was referred to the Court after the three-month time limit permitted under former Article 32 of the Convention. (Judgment in French)   3)   Mattiello v. Italy (no. 42993/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Immacolata Mattiello, an Italian national, complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to proceedings conducted within a reasonable time) about the length of civil proceedings to which she was a party, which lasted more than seven years and five months. The Court held by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded her 16,000,000 Italian lire (ITL) for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 3,000,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   4)   Di Niro v. Italy (no. 43011/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Carmela Di Niro, an Italian national, complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of civil proceedings to which she was a party, which lasted more than more than six years and ten months. The Court held by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded her ITL   16,000,000 Italian lire for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 3,000,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   5)   Iadarola v. Italy (no. 43091/98)   Friendly settlement   Nicola Iadarola, an Italian national who died on 11 October 1999, complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the civil proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted more than ten years and seven months. The European Court of Human Rights has agreed to strike out the case following a friendly settlement in which his heir, Antonio Iadarola, is to be paid ITL 9,000,000 for any non-pecuniary damage and ITL 3,000,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   6)   Lepore and 2 Others v. Italy (no. 43102/98)   Friendly settlement   Tommaso and Michele Lepore and Teresa Iannotti complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the civil proceedings to which they were parties, which lasted more than five years and two months. The Court has agreed to strike out the case following a friendly settlement in which each applicant is to be paid ITL 10,000,000 for any non-pecuniary damage and ITL 1,000,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   7)   Klein v. Germany (no. 33379/96)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Edgar Klein, a German national, complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of civil proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted approximately nine years and eight months. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that the judgment constituted sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. The Court awarded the applicant 7,000 German marks for costs and expenses. (Judgment in English)   8)   Kazimierczak v. Poland (no. 33863/96)   Struck out   Janusz Kazimierczak, a Polish national, complained, among other things, under Article 5 § 3   (right to be brought promptly before a judge) about the length of his detention on remand, which lasted approximately two years and six months. The Court has agreed to strike out the case following the death of the applicant, finding no reasons of a general character under Article 37 § 1 (striking out applications) to continue with an examination of the application. (Judgment in English)   9)   S.A. v. Portugal (no. 36421/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1   S.A., a Portuguese national, complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the civil proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted about seven years. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §1 and awarded the applicant 400,000 Portuguese escudos for any non-pecuniary damage. (Judgment in French)   10)   Pirola v. Italy (no. 45065/98)   Friendly settlement   Paolo Pirola complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the civil proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted more than eight years. The Court has agreed to strike out the case following a friendly settlement in which he is to be paid ITL 20,000,000 for any non-pecuniary damage and ITL   5,000,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   11)   Morena v. Italy (no. 45066/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Filomena Morena complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the civil proceedings to which she was a party, which lasted nearly seven years and three months. The Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded her ITL 10,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 1,615,680 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   12)   Moretti v. Italy (no. 45067/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Luigi Moretti complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the civil proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted five years and seven months. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded him ITL 10,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL   5,000,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   13)   Toscano and 3 Others v. Italy (no. 45068/98)   Friendly settlement   Salvatore, Carmelo and Antonino Toscano and Maria Rapisarda Toscano complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the civil proceedings to which they were parties, which have lasted seven years and seven months. The Court has agreed to strike out the case following a friendly settlement in which Salvatore Toscano is to be paid ITL 21,000,000 and the other three applicants each ITL 11,000,000 for any non-pecuniary damage. Each applicant is also to be paid ITL 1,250,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   14)   Sartori v. Italy (no. 45069/98   Violation Article 6 § 1   Giuseppe Sartori, an Italian national, complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the civil proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted more than fifteen years and seven months. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant ITL   30,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (Judgment in French)   15)   Persichetti & C. S.r.L. v. Italy (no. 45070/98)   Friendly settlement   Persichetti & C. S.r.l, an Italian company, complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the civil proceedings to which it was a party, which lasted more than eleven years. The Court has agreed to strike out the case following a friendly settlement in which the company is to be paid ITL 20,000,000 for any damages and ITL 1,000,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   16)   Novotny v. Italy (no. 45072/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Eliane Novotny, an Italian national, complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the civil proceedings to which she was a party, which lasted more than thirteen years and three months. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded her ITL 40,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 2,000,000 for costs and expenses. (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 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.