CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 25 février 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 } .s9AFF8173 { width:17.68pt; display:inline-block } .sB4B681B0 { width:26.19pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sE9E4B253 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sED5C3F7F { width:12.89pt; display:inline-block } .s10EE1A36 { width:31.99pt; display:inline-block } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA904E5F0 { width:7.65pt; display:inline-block } .s2AC1E0E3 { width:16pt; display:inline-block } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS       383     25.5.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three chamber judgments concerning Italy and Spain .   1)   Esposito v. Italy (application no. 20855/92)           Friendly settlement   Luigi Esposito, an Italian national, complained that for a lengthy period it had been impossible for him to recover possession of his flat because of emergency legislation on the eviction of tenants. He also complained about the length of the eviction proceedings which had lasted more than 12 years. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which Mr Esposito is to be paid 35,000,000 Italian lire (ITL) for any non-pecuniary damage, ITL 74,864,000 for any pecuniary damage and ITL 10,000,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   2)   Arbore v. Italy [1] (no. 41840/98)                              Violation Article 6 § 1   Aldo Arbore, an Italian national, complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of civil proceedings before the Court of Audit to which he was a party, which lasted more than twenty-eight years and three months. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded him ITL 30,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 5,000,000   for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)     3)   Miragall Escolano and Others v. Spain (nos. 38366/97, 38688/97, 40777/98, 40843/98, 41015/98, 41400/98, 41446/98, 41484/98, 41487/98 and 41509/98)                                          Article 41 (just satisfaction)   The applicants, Juan Miragall Escolano, María de la Cinta Andreu Rocamora, María Victoria Bonet Vilar,   Valentín Gómez López, José Antonio Soriano Rams, Francisco Monforte Sancho, María Dolores García Moreno, José Roig Espert, Salvador Roig Espert et Ana María Icardo García are all Spanish nationals.       In today’s Article 41 judgment [2] , which deals only with just satisfaction, the Court has struck out the case following a friendly settlement in which the applicants are to be paid, for any pecuniary damage, respectively: 3,204,629 pesetas (ESP), ESP 3,166,977, ESP 1,020,016, ESP 1,265,893, ESP 1,203,846, ESP 2,236,887, ESP 1,772,678, ESP 1,759,173, ESP 6,999,318 and ESP 983,053. (Judgment in French)   ***   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. [2] In its judgment of 25 January 2000 (“the principal judgment”) the Court held that as a result of a particularly narrow interpretation of a procedural rule by the domestic courts, the applicants had been denied the right of access to a court to have their claims for compensation examined, following the quashing of a ministerial decree restricting profit margins made by chemists in Spain, and that there had therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1.