CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 juin 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s9AFF8173 { width:17.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s9CEB77E1 { width:1.53pt; display:inline-block } .s51CCBC7A { width:8.16pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .sE3CBA86F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .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   412             8.6.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing two Chamber judgments concerning Denmark and Portugal .   1)   Oliveira Modesto and Others v. Portugal [1] 1 (no. 34422/97)            Violation Article 6 § 1   122 former employees of Company F. - C.M.E. S.A, based in Aveiro, Portugal, complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights about the length of the civil proceedings they had brought against the company, which lasted twelve years and three months. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded each applicant 900,000 Portuguese escudos (PTE) for non-pecuniary damage (a total of PTE 109,800,000) and PTE 313,840 to the first applicant for costs and expenses. The judgment exists only in French.     2)   Grosse v. Denmark (application no. 30285/96)                   Friendly settlement   Ruddy Grosse, a Danish national, complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the criminal proceedings against him, which lasted more than nine years. The Court has agreed to strike out the case following a friendly settlement in which Mr Grosse is to be paid 50,000 Danish kroner for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and 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.