CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 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 } .s55D385AE { width:5.91pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s92860DCF { width:27.21pt; display:inline-block } .s1C3491D { width:31.88pt; display:inline-block } .s2E9B437C { width:27.22pt; display:inline-block } .sAAF48370 { width:22.55pt; display:inline-block } .sEF11B80B { width:8.57pt; display:inline-block } .s43A76D93 { width:9.21pt; display:inline-block } .s2E2FCFA { width:33.23pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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     826   16.11.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING: Denmark, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 34 Chamber judgments. Only Petersen v. Denmark and Ribeiro Ferreira Ruah v. Portugal are final [1] .   Section 2   (1)     Tanrıbilir v. Turkey (no. 21422/93)                No violation Articles 2 or 3 Hediye Tanrıbilir, a Turkish national born in 1944 and living in Düzova, in the Cizre province of Turkey, alleged that her son was killed by gendarmes while he was in custody and that the circumstances of his death were not investigated. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 2 (right to life) or of Article 3 (prohibition of torture, degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgment is available only in French.   (2)     Petersen v. Denmark (no. 24989/94)                  Friendly settlement Flemming Petersen, a Danish national, now deceased, complained under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention that he had not had a fair hearing by an independent tribunal for the determination of a dispute in relation to a parking fine. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 17,000 Danish kroner is to be paid to the applicant’s heirs for any damage, costs and expenses. (Judgment in English)   (3)     Bielectric Srl v. Italy (no. 36811/97)              Violation Article 6 § 1 Bielectric srl, an Italian registered company, complained about the length (more than thirteen years) of civil proceedings to which it was a party, relating to the fact that it was impossible for the company to find out how it could bring its factory building into compliance with anti-seismic regulations and, therefore, start its manufacturing activity. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant company 20,000,000 Italian lire (ITL) for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 8,000,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in English)       (4)     Société Anonyme “Sotiris et Nikos Koutras ATTEE” v. Greece (no. 39442/98)            Violation Article 6 § 1 The Greek applicant company, Sotiris et Nikos Koutras ATTEE, complained that the   inadmissibility of its application for judicial review by the Council of State constituted a violation of its right to access to a court. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that it was unnecessary to consider the complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). The Court awarded the applicant 3,000,000 Greek drachmas (GRD) for non-pecuniary damage and GRD 250,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   (5)     Rojas Morales v. Italy (no. 39676/98)               Violation Article 6 § 1 Carlos Rojas Morales, a Chilean national accused of criminal conspiracy and international drug-trafficking, complained about the lack of impartiality of the court in Milan trying his case. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant ITL 10,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 10,000,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   (6)     Vaccaro v. Italy (no. 41852/98)                Violation Article 5 § 3 Antonino Vaccaro, an Italian national, complained about the length (four years, eight months and two days) of his detention on remand on accusations of belonging to a Mafia-type association, drug-trafficking, unlawful possession of arms and forgery. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to be tried within a reasonable time or released pending trial) and awarded the applicant ITL 10,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 5,000,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in English)   (7)     Bacigalupi v. Italy (no. 45856/99)               Violation Article 6 § 1 Tiziana Bacigalupi, an Italian national, complained about the length (around eleven years and eleven months) of criminal proceedings to which she was a civil party in relation to the death of her mother in a car accident. The Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded her ITL 15,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (Judgment in French)   Section 4   (8)     Martins and Garcia Alves v. Portugal (no. 37528/97)          Violation Article 6 § 1 Leonel Joaquim Martins et João Garcia Alves, both Portuguese nationals, complained about the length (twelve years and one month) of criminal proceedings to which they were parties on charges of fraud. The Court 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. (Judgment in French)   (9)     Ribeiro Ferreira Ruah v. Portugal (no. 38325/97)               Friendly settlement Tereza Maria Ribeiro Ferreira Ruah, a Portuguese national, complained, under Article 6 § 1, about the length of civil proceedings to which she was a party, which started in October 1981 and are still pending. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which PTE 1,400,000 is to be paid to the applicant. (Judgment in French)     The following twenty-five judgments all concern length of civil proceedings. In each case, the European Court of Human rights found, unanimously [2] , a violation of Article 6 § 1. The judgments exist only in French.   (10)     Il Messaggero S.a.s. v. Italy (no. 2) (no. 46516/99) - more than five years and six months, still pending. ITL 5,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 1,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (11)     Il Messaggero S.a.s. v. Italy (no. 3) (no. 46517/99) - more than five years and eight months, still pending. ITL 10,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 1,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (12)     Il Messaggero S.a.s. v. Italy (no. 4) (no. 46518/99) - more than five years and eleven months, still pending. ITL 5,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 1,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (13)     Il Messaggero S.a.s. v. Italy (no. 5) (no. 46519/99) - more than five years and six months, still pending. ITL 5,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 1,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (14)     Dorigo v. Italy (no. 46520/99) - more than nine years and four months, still pending. ITL 24,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 5,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (15)   Nolla v. Italy (no. 46522/99) - more than seven years and two months. ITL 16,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   (16)   Lonardi v. Italy (no. 46523/99) - more than seven years and eight months. ITL 18,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 4,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (17)   F., T. and E. v. Italy (nos. 46524/99 and 46525/99) - around ten years, still pending. ITL 28,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 500,000 for costs and expenses.   (18)     Carboni v. Italy (no. 46526/99) - more than thirteen years and three months, still pending. ITL 40,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 5,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (19)     Corsi v. Italy (no. 46527/99) - more than eleven years and seven months, still pending. ITL 32,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 4,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (20)     Giannalia v. Italy (no. 46528/99) - around fourteen years and eight months, still pending. ITL 30,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 5,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (21)     Iulio v. Italy (no. 46530/99) - more than seven years and seven months, still pending. ITL 18,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 5,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (22)     Giovannangeli v. Italy (no. 46531/99) - more than twenty-two years and eleven months. ITL 45,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 4,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (23)     Gaspare Conte v. Italy (no. 46532/99) - more than thirteen years and six months. ITL 14,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 1, 500,000 for costs and expenses.   (24)     F.L.S. v. Italy (no. 46533/99) - around eight years and ten months. ITL 20,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 3,886,475 for costs and expenses.   (25)     Burghesu v. Italy (no. 46534/99) - more than twenty-two years and nine months, still pending. ITL 64,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 4,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (26)     D.C. v. Italy (no. 46536/99) - at least eight years and eleven months, still pending. ITL 20,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 1,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (27)     Cerulli and Zadra v. Italy (no. 46537/99) - more than nine years and eight months, still pending. ITL 16,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 2,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (28)     Francesco Costantini v. Italy (no. 46538/99) - more than eight years and nine months, still pending. ITL 16,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 4,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (29)     Tor di Valle Costruzioni S.p. A. v. Italy (no. 7) (no. 46539/99) - more than eight years and five months, still pending. ITL 20,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   (30)     MMB di Beloli Luciano & C. s.n.c. and Beloli v. Italy (no. 46540/99) - nine years, still pending. ITL 15,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 1,500,000 for costs and expenses.   (31)     Calbini v. Italy (no. 46541/99) - almost eight years and five months. ITL 20,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 5,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (32)     Lanino v. Italy (no. 46542/99) - more than nine years and three months, still pending. ITL 20,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 5,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (33)     G.S. and L.M. v. Italy (no. 46543/99) - more than five years and eleven months. ITL 10,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 2,500,000 for costs and expenses.   (34)     Ciccardi v. Italy (no. 46521/99) - around three years and three months. ITL 11,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 3,000,000 for costs and expenses.     *** 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.   [2] Except Ciccardi v. Italy (five votes to two)