CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 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 } .sC9887A9 { width:16.59pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s9A1F34BB { width:21.91pt; display:inline-block } .s26E441BC { width:18.56pt; display:inline-block } .sA95D1C5F { width:19.23pt; display:inline-block } .s73C2F63A { width:4.55pt; display:inline-block } .s6B01CE9A { width:8.58pt; display:inline-block } .s53D4691F { width:35.23pt; 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 } .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     853   28.11.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING: Austria and France   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments; only Pulvirenti v. France   is final [1] :   Section 3   (1)     Thurin v. France (no. 32033/96)              Violation Article 6 § 1 Georges Thurin, a French national, complained about the length (more than nine years and eight months, still pending) of criminal proceedings relating to charges of forgery and fraud to which he is a civil party. 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 40,000 French francs (FRF) for non-pecuniary damage. The judgment is available only in French.   (2)     Rösslhuber v. Austria (no. 32869/96)              Violation Article 6 § 1 Dietrich     Rösslhuber, an Austrian national, complained about the length (eleven years and four months, still pending) of criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of fraud and breach of trust within the context of investments in a real estate fund. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant   100,000 Austrian schillings for non-pecuniary damage. (Judgment in English)   (3)     Siegel v. France (no. 36350/97)                 Violation Article 6 § 1 Auguste Siegel, a French national, complained about the length (nearly five years) of civil proceedings, to which he was a party, relating to an inheritance claim. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and made no award for damage or costs. (Judgment in French)   (4)     Lucas v. France (no. 37257/97)                Violation Article 6 § 1 Lucie Lucas, a French national, complained about the length (more than fifteen years and one month, still pending) of criminal proceedings relating to misappropriation of funds to which she is a civil party. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant FRF 50,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (Judgment in French) (5)     Leclercq v. France (no. 38398/97)               Violation Article 6 § 1 Roland Leclercq, a French national, complained about the length (nearly twelve years and four months) of industrial tribunal proceedings to which he was a party. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant FRF 40,000 for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 15,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   (6)     Bouriau v. France (no. 39523/98)              Violation Article 6 § 1 Lucien Bouriau, a French national, complained about the length (more than nine years and three months) of criminal proceedings against him for misappropriation of company assets. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant FRF 65,000 for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 30,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   (7)     Pulvirenti v. France (no. 41526/98)                   Friendly settlement Maria Pulvirenti, an Italian national, complained, under Article 6 § 1, about the length (nearly nine years, still pending) of civil proceedings to which she is a party, relating to her son’s confinement in a mental hospital. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to be paid a global sum of FRF 30,000. (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.