CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 octobre 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 } .sED7F8F29 { width:35.9pt; display:inline-block } .s6C8591A { width:13.22pt; 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 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     705   10.10.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING: France, Lithuania and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments:   Section 3   (1)     McDaid v. the United Kingdom (UK), Ward v. UK, Giles v. UK, Leece v. UK, Shorters v. UK and Thwaites v. UK (nos. 34822/97, 34957/97, 34988/97, 35575/97, 35576/97, 35578/98)                    Friendly settlement   Six British nationals, James McDaid, Shane Ward, Stephen Giles, James Leece, Tracey Shorters and Kevin Thwaites, complained that, in respect of court-martial proceedings against them, they did not have a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 750 pounds sterling is to be paid in each case for costs and expenses. The judgment is available only in English.   (2)     Grauslys v. Lithuania (no. 36743/97) [1]        Violation Article 5 §§ 1 & 4 and Article 6 § 1                 No violation Article 5 § 3   Algis Grauslys, a Lithuanian national, alleged that, following his arrest on suspicion of fraud, his detention on remand was unlawful, he was not brought promptly before a judge or other officer, he was not able to take proceedings to review the lawfulness of his detention, and the length of the criminal proceedings against him was excessive (four years and eleven months).   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article   5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention as regards his detention on remand from 9 October to 5   December 1996; no violation of Article   5 § 1 as regards his detention on remand from 5 December 1996; no violation of Article   5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge); a violation of Article   5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court); and, a violation of Article   6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). The Court awarded the applicant 40,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL) for non-pecuniary damage and LTL 20,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in English)   (3)     Graužinis v. Lithuania (no. 37975/97) Violation Article 5 § 4, no violation Article 5 § 3   Arminas   Graužinis, a Lithuanian national, alleged that he was not brought before a judge and that he could not have the lawfulness of his detention reviewed following his arrest for having attacked the owner of a café and for having threatened to take control of his property. The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3 and that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4, awarding the applicant LTL 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and LTL 3,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in English)   (4)     Lagrange v. France (no. 39485/98)               Violation Article 6 § 1   The applicants, Guy, Pierrette and Guillaume Lagrange, all French nationals, complained that they were denied access to the civil courts for any further compensation claim following the death of their relative, a haemophiliac who had contracted AIDS after a blood transfusion. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to a court) and awarded the applicants 1,000,000 French francs (FRF) for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 10,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   (5)     Dachar v. France (no. 42338/98)              Violation Article 6 § 1   Jean Dachar, a French national complained about the length of criminal proceedings (eight years and three months) to which he was a civil party. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded him FRF 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (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.