CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 novembre 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 } .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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s71E41281 { width:14.58pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2FCDF618 { width:5.26pt; display:inline-block } .s69DD5DA7 { width:5.32pt; display:inline-block } .s56ADBF26 { width:11.91pt; display:inline-block } .sDE7B995E { width:23.24pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sE08B0666 { width:31.24pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sED7F8F29 { width:35.9pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   818   14.11.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING: AUSTRIA, FRANCE AND TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 10 Chamber judgments ( T. v. Austria and the friendly settlements are final [1] ):   Section 1   (1)     B.T. and Others v. Turkey (nos. 26093/94 and 26094/94)                    Friendly settlement Nine Turkish applicants complained, under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) 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 23,200 American dollars (USD) is to be paid for any damage, costs and expenses. The judgment is available only in French.   (2)     Yaşar and Others v. Turkey (nos. 27697/95 and 27698/95)                          Violation Article 1 Protocol No. 1 17 Turkish applicants complained in relation to the expropriation of their land and the length of the civil proceedings to which they were parties. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that it was unnecessary to examine the complaints raised under Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicants a total of USD 5,795 for non-pecuniary damage, USD 17,000 for pecuniary damage and USD 2,100 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   (3)     V.N.K. and forty-four Others v. Turkey (nos. 29888/96, 29889/96, 29890/96, 29891/96, 29892/96, 29893/96, 29894/96, 29895/96, 29896/96,)           Friendly settlement 45 Turkish applicants complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in relation to the expropriation of their land. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which a total of USD 66,840 is to be paid for any damage, costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   (4)     Gündüz and Others v. Turkey (no. 31249/96)                 Friendly settlement Six Turkish applicants complained, under Articles 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment) and 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge), about the length of their detention on remand, which lasted between seventeen and twenty-seven days. They also complained that they had been ill-treated during their detention. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 25,000 French francs (FRF) is to be paid to Enver Gündüz, and FRF 30,000 each to Şirin Ağahatun, Hüseyin Avcı, Hanifi Turan, Şahabettin Alp et Menşure Avcı for any non-pecuniary damage and FRF 15,000 in total for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)     Section 3   (5)     T. v. Austria (no. 27783/95)                     Violation Article 6 § 1 and 6 § 3 (a) and (b) T., an Austrian national, complained about the length of the civil proceedings between him and a bank, which lasted almost eight-and-a-half years. He also complained that the District Court, before fining him for abuse of process, did not inform him of its suspicion that he had made false or incomplete statements in his legal aid request and that he could not, therefore, defend himself. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 regarding the length of the civil proceedings and of Article 6 § 1 taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 3(a) (right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation) and (b) (right to have adequate time and facilities for defence) regarding the proceedings resulting in a fine for abuse of process. The applicant was awarded 5,218 Austrian schillings for costs and expenses. (Judgment in English)   (6)     Annoni di Gussola, Debordes and Omer v. France (nos. 31819/96 and 33293/96)                                                    Violation Article 6 § 1 Guido Annoni di Gussola, Valérie Debordes and Stéphane Omer, all French nationals, complained that they were denied access to the Court of Cassation, in that the President of the Court of Cassation had removed from the list the proceedings opened as a result of their notice of intention to appeal on points of law, without taking into account the provisions of article 1009-1 of the new Code of Civil Procedure. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded, for non-pecuniary damage, FRF 100,000 to Mr   Annoni di Gussola and FRF 50,000 to each of the other two applicants, and, for costs and expenses, FRF 28,702   to M. Annoni di Gussola and FRF 14,904.50 to each of the others. (Judgment in French)   (7)     Riepan v. Austria (no. 35115/97)               Violation Article 6 § 1 Oliver Riepan, an Austrian national, complained that in criminal proceeding against him, on charges of dangerous menace, he did not have a public hearing, as the trial was held in the prison where he is serving an eighteen-year prison sentence for murder and burglary. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that a finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. The applicant was awarded ATS 50,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in English)   (8)     Piron v. France (no. 36436/97)         Violation Article 1 Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 Monique Piron, a French national, complained about land consolidation proceedings, which lasted more than twenty-six years. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant FRF 100,000 for non-pecuniary damage, FRF 100,000 for pecuniary damage and FRF 78,119 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)     (9)     P.V. v. France (no. 38305/97)                            Violation Article 6 § 1 P.V., a French national, complained about the length (fourteen years, ten months and twenty-four days) of civil proceedings to which he was a party, relating to an inheritance dispute. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded him FRF 50,000 for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 8,442 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   (10)     Delgado v. France (no. 38437/97)               Violation Article 6 § 1 Yvonne Delgado, a French national, complained about the length (fourteen years, ten months and still pending and three years and nine months) of two sets of industrial tribunal proceedings, both relating to dismissals from her job. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in relation to both sets of proceedings and awarded her a total of FRF 250,000 for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. (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)   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 Strasbourg in 1959 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.