CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 mars 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 } .sCC843BA8 { width:25.33pt; display:inline-block } .sEAA85E6E { width:35.86pt; display:inline-block } .sE2821D22 { width:0.58pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sF5D6692F { width:4.58pt; display:inline-block } .sC1244005 { width:10.54pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sC70B85C6 { width:24.78pt; display:inline-block } .s84C82F45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s556ED54D { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sE9E4B253 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s22738A9D { width:31.89pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AECD959 { width:25.25pt; display:inline-block } .s62F37AE4 { width:30.56pt; display:inline-block } .s1B325EC3 { width:18.66pt; display:inline-block } .s5CAF9248 { width:11.01pt; display:inline-block } .sA904E5F0 { width:7.65pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .s147A4AAD { width:18pt; display:inline-block } .s8AFB426F { width:32.67pt; display:inline-block } .s68BA453A { width:7.99pt; 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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS       216     28.3.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11 chamber judgments concerning: Cyprus, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Switzerland and the United Kingdom .   1)   Kiefer v. Switzerland (Application number 27353/95)            Violation Art. 6 § 1   Erich Kiefer, an Austrian national born in 1946 and living in Graz, complained about the length of social security proceedings, to which he was a party, which lasted more than six years and nine months. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded the applicant 5,000 Swiss Francs (CHF) for non-pecuniary damage and CHF 6,000 for costs. The judgment exists only in English. It is a final judgment.   2)   Marrazzo v. Italy (No. 41203/98)                  Friendly settlement   Antonio Marazzo, an Italian national, complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the criminal proceedings against him, which lasted around six years. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which he is to be paid 6,000,000 lire (ITL) for costs and any damage. (Judgment in English.)   3)   Boccardi v. Italy (No. 38045/97)                  Friendly settlement   Luigi Boccardi, an Italian national, complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the criminal proceedings against him, which lasted four years and six months. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which he is to be paid ITL 13,000,000 for costs and any non-pecuniary damage. (Judgment in English.)   4)   Henry Krog Pedersen v. Denmark (No. 28064/95)              Friendly settlement   Henry Krog Pedersen, a Danish national, complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of civil proceedings, to which he was a party, which lasted eight years and 11 months. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which he is to be paid 50,000 kroner for costs and any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. (Judgment in English.)   5)   Georgiadis v. Greece 1 (No. 41209/98)            Violation Art. 1 Prot. No. 1 & Art. 6 § 1   Dimitrios Georgiadis, a Greek national born in 1930 and living in Thessaloniki, complained that refusal by the relevant authorities to comply with a judgment of the Court of Audit had infringed his right to effective judicial protection in a dispute concerning his civil rights. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial). He further alleged that the refusal by the relevant authorities to pay him the additional pension to which he had been adjudged to be entitled infringed his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 and awarded the applicant 11,043,786 drachmas (GRD) for pecuniary damage, GRD 1,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and GRD 1,000,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French.)   6)   Protopapa and Marangou v. Greece 1 (No. 38971/97)            Violation Art. 6 § 1   Patra Protopapa and Anna Marangou, both Greek nationals, complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of administrative proceedings, to which they were parties, which lasted nearly six years and seven months. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded each applicant GRD 2,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and GRD 500,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in English.)   7)   Jacquie & Ledun v. France 1 (No. 40493/98)                                  Violation Art. 6 § 1   Marie-Claire Jacquie and Chantal Ledun, both French nationals, complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of administrative proceedings, to which they were parties, which lasted more than seven years and are still pending. The applicants are, respectively, the wife and daughter of Robert Jacquie, who had contracted the hepatitis C virus following a blood transfusion in 1983 and who died in 1990. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded each applicant 30,000 French francs (FRF) for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 10,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French.)   8)   Pitsillos v. Cyprus (No. 41854/98)                  Friendly settlement   Modestos Pitsillos, a Cypriot national, complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of   civil proceedings, to which he was a party, which have lasted more than nine years and seven months. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which he is to be paid 3,000 Cypriot pounds for any damage and costs. (Judgment in English.)   9)   Gerber v. France 1 (No. 33237/96)                  Violation Art. 6 § 1   Armand Gerber, a French national born in 1919 and living in Périgueux-Coulounieix,   complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of civil proceedings, to which he was a party, which lasted around 18 years and four months. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant FRF 100,000 for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 35,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French.)   10)   Aldo and Jean-Baptiste Zanatta v. France 1 (No. 38042/97)         Violation Art. 6 § 1   Aldo and Jean-Baptiste Zanatta, both French nationals, complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of civil proceedings, to which they were parties, which lasted six years. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded each applicant FRF 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 5,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French.)   11)     Curley v. United Kingdom [1] (No. 32340/96)               Violation Art. 5 § 4 & Art. 5 § 5                             No violation Art. 3   Brian Curley, a British national born in 1961 and being held in detention “at Her Majesty’s Pleasure”, complained under Article 5 (right to liberty and security) that he had no access to a review of the lawfulness of his continued detention, in breach of Article 5 § 4, or the possibility of obtaining compensation, as required by Article 5 § 5. He also claimed that the length of his detention, given the lack of an adequate procedure to decide on his release, constituted degrading and inhuman punishment within the meaning of Article 3. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 and Article 5 § 5 but that there had been no violation of Article 3 and awarded the applicant 1,500 pounds sterling (GBP) for non-pecuniary damage and GBP 3,664.40, less FRF 4,100, for costs and expenses. (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.