CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 novembre 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA977E89C { width:90.63pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s37D2CB7F { width:77.25pt; display:inline-block } .s1EB5302A { width:37.5pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s906CA806 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s5E15F1C8 { width:0.33pt; 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     791   7.11.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING FRANCE, GREECE, ITALY AND THE UNITED KINGDOM.       The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 24 Chamber judgments [1] .     SECTION 1   (1)     Lacombe v. France (application no. 44211/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Richard Lacombe, a French national, complained about the length of the administrative proceedings to which he was a party (five years and three months), relating to his questioning a decision made by his employer to declare him a contractual employee in the nursery where he was employed as a mechanic. 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 Mr Lacombe 30,000 French francs (FRF) for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 15,000 for costs and expenses. The judgment is available only in French.   SECTION 3   (2)     Kingsley v. the United Kingdom (no. 35605/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Max Myer Kingsley, a British national, complained in relation to proceedings before the Gaming Board for Great Britain which refused to grant him a certificate to hold a management position in the gaming industry. He further complains that the review by the High Court of the Gaming Board’s decision could not adequately remedy the matter because of the restricted nature of judicial review. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and awarded Mr Kingsley 13,500 pounds sterling for costs and expenses and held, by six votes to one, that a finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. (Judgment in English)     (3)     Anagnostopoulos and others v. Greece (no. 39374/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Dimitrios Anagnostopoulos, Athanassios Anastassopoulos, Vassilios Anastopoulos, Constantinos Zarkadakis, Dimitrios Pantazopoulos, Alexandros Paraskevopoulos et Christos Vassilopoulos, all Greek nationals, complained about the length of proceedings before the Court of Audit relating to the retroactive adjustment of their pensions following new Greek legislation. The proceedings lasted, respectively: five years, six months and six days; five years, five months and four days; five years, four months and 20 days; five years, six months and 15 days; five years, six months and seven days; five years, six months and 14 days and five years, six months and eight days. The second, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants also complain about the fairness of proceedings concerning their pensions .   The Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the fairness of the proceedings in relation the second, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants and, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of the proceedings in relation to all seven applicants. The Court also held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to decide whether there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy). For non-pecuniary damage, by six votes to one, the Court awarded 500,000 Greek drachmas (GRD) to the first and third applicants and GRD 1,000,000 to each of the others. A further GRD 900,000 was awarded to each of the seven applicants for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)     The following twenty-one judgments   exist only in French.   Violation Article 6 § 1   In the nineteen cases below, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of the proceedings.   (4)     Gaudino v. Italy (no. 45873/99) - more than eight years, seven months, still pending Bartolomeo Gaudino, an Italian national born in 1965 and living in Nocera Inferiore (Salerne). Awarded 22,000,000 Italian lira (ITL) for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 1,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (5)     Pittoni v. Italy (no. 45874/99) - just over five years and six months Angelina Pittoni, an Italian national born in 1944 and living in Cernusco sul Naviglio (Milan). Awarded ITL   14,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 5,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (6)     Il Messaggero S.a.s. v. Italy (no. 45876/99) - six years and ten months Il Messaggero S.a.s., an Italian company based in Aprilia (Latina). Awarded ITL 12,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   (7)     Piccirillo v. Italy (no. 45878/99) - more than eight years and two months Angela Piccirillo, an Italian national. Awarded ITL 25,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL   2,000,000 for costs and expenses. The Court further held that it was not necessary to consider the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   (8)     Turchini v. Italy (no. 45879/99) - more than 15 years and two months, still pending Romana Turchini, born in 1940 and living in Rome. Awarded ITL 37,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   (9)     AR.GE.A. S.n.c. en liquidation v. Italy (no. 45881/99) - more than 23 years and nine months AR.GE.A. S.n.c., an Italian company. Awarded ITL 32,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL   2,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (10)     Cossu v. Italy (no. 45884/99) - five years and four months Wilma Cossu, an Italian national. Awarded ITL 15,000,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and ITL   4,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (11)     Iannelli v. Italy (no. 45885/99) - more than eight years and three months, still pending Margherita Iannelli, an Italian national. Awarded ITL 20,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL   5,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (12)     Gratteri v. Italy (no. 45886/99) - nearly 26 years and two months, still pending Sarina Gratteri, an Italian national. Awarded ITL 75,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL   5,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (13)     Roma v. Italy (no. 45887/99) - more than ten years and nine months Guido Roma, an Italian national. Awarded ITL 12,600,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   (14)     Giarratana v. Italy (no. 45888/99) - more than ten years and one month Francesco Giarratana, an Italian national. Awarded ITL 23,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL   1,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (15)     D’Antoni v. Italy (no. 45890/99) - more than 12 years and eight months, still pending Antonio D’Antoni, an Italian national. Awarded ITL 18,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL   5,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (16)     Feffin v. Italy (no. 45892/99) - more than five years and one month Vittorio Feffin, an Italian national. Awarded ITL 10,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL   3,084,236 for costs and expenses.   (17)     M.A.I.E. S.n.c. v. Italy (no. 45893/99) - more than seven years and seven months, still pending M.A.I.E. S.n.c., an Italian company. Awarded ITL 12,000,000 for damage.   (18)     Pernici and D’Ercole v. Italy (no. 45894/99) - nearly five years and six months Antonio Pernici and Paola D’Ercole, both Italian nationals. Each applicant awarded ITL   15,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 2,445,000 for costs and expenses.   (19)     Santini v. Italy (no. 45895/99) - at least five years and three months Marco Santini, an Italian national. No request made for just satisfaction.   (20)     Guidi v. Italy (no. 45896/99) - at least five years and five months Maristella Guidi, an Italian national. Awarded ITL 8,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL   4,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (21)     Forte v. Italy (no. 45897/99) - more than 14 years and five months, still pending Pietro Forte, an Italian national. Awarded ITL 41,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL   1,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (22)     Di Teodoro and Others v. Italy (no. 45898/99) - more than 12 years Anna Lucia Di Teodoro, Marisa Di Pietro, Giovanni Stile, Bruna Scarioli, Stefano Tempesta and Marzio Volpe, all Italian nationals. Each applicant (except Marzio Volpe) awarded ITL   32,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage.     No violation Article 6 § 1   In the two cases below, the European Court of Human Rights held by five votes to two and four votes to three respectively that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.   (23)     P.G.V. v. Italy (no. 45889/99) - more than three years and nine months P.G.V., an Italian national.   (24)     Piccolo v. Italy (no. 45891/99) - more than three years and seven months Carmelo Piccolo, an Italian national.   ***   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.