CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 juin 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 } .s5F1C7C86 { width:6.15pt; 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9AFF8173 { width:17.68pt; display:inline-block } .sFF522378 { width:136.9pt; display:inline-block } .s90375BE7 { width:88.2pt; display:inline-block } .s2342909B { width:123.56pt; display:inline-block } .s79030D64 { width:188.25pt; display:inline-block } .s3405CF1B { width:59.61pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s1FD0CBB8 { width:21.31pt; display:inline-block } .s10E66146 { width:19.34pt; display:inline-block } .s8AFB426F { width:32.67pt; display:inline-block } .s498DF152 { width:9.33pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s7A5A2521 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     404     6.6.2000     Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a Grand Chamber judgment concerning Poland and the following four Chamber judgments concerning the United Kingdom , Czech Republic and France. Český v. Czech Republic and Morel v. France are not final [1] 1 .     Grand Chamber   1)   Mikulski v. Poland (no. 27914/95)   Friendly settlement   Piotr Mikulski, a Polish national born in 1954 and living in Warsaw, complained of the excessive length (one year, eleven months and twenty eight days) of his detention on remand on charges of aggravated assault and robbery. He also complained about the length of proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted three years and five months and the lack of an effective domestic remedy concerning the length of proceedings. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which Mr Mikulski is to be paid 20,000 Polish zlotys for any pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage or costs. The judgment is available in English and French.   Chamber (Section 3)   2)   Český v. Czech Republic (no. 33644/96)   Violation Article 5 § 3   Libor Český, a Czech citizen, complained under Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) of his detention on remand on charges of robbery and the refusal to release him on bail. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3, in view of the excessive length of his detention on remand (which lasted three-and-a-half years), and awarded Mr Český 10,000 Czech korunas (CZK) for pecuniary damage and CZK 66,000 for costs and expenses. The judgment exists only in English.       3)   Morel v. France (no. 34130/96)   No violation Article 6 § 1   Hubert Morel is a French national born in 1947 and living in Villeneuve-la-Garenne (France). He complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), that the bankruptcy judge at the Nanterre Commercial Court was not impartial, on the ground that bankruptcy judges not only intervene during the period when a company is under observation during the judicial reorganisation phase but subsequently preside over the court dealing with liquidation proceedings. He also complained that the proceedings were unfair, on the ground that a bankruptcy judge’s report, which is submitted to the commercial court in liquidation proceedings, is not communicated to the parties. As there was no evidence of partiality and no report drawn up by the judge in this case, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 either in respect of the right to a fair trial or in respect of the right to an impartial tribunal. (Judgment in French).   4)   Castillon v. France (no. 35348/97)   Struck off   Laurent Castillon, a French national, complained under Article 5 § 3 of the excessive length of his detention on remand (four years, nine months and seven days) following his arrest for armed robbery. The Court held unanimously that the case should be struck off as Mr Castillon had not exhausted domestic remedies. (Judgment in French).   5)   Downing v. the United Kingdom (no. 36525/97)   Friendly settlement   Stephen Downing, a British national, was convicted of murder in 1974 when he was 17 years old. He complained, under Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), that he had not had the opportunity to obtain a review of the lawfulness of his continued detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure since the expiry in 1989 of the “tariff” part of his sentence. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which Mr Downing is to be paid 500 pounds sterling for any non-pecuniary damage and for certain legal costs. (Judgment in English)   ***   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 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.