CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 octobre 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sBD667B4A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:97% } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s42434F18 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:97% } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s36204939 { width:214.87pt; display:inline-block } .s8A272BD1 { width:180.59pt; display:inline-block } .s659604B6 { width:165.25pt; display:inline-block } .s7FE0F837 { width:135.93pt; display:inline-block } .s25476CDA { width:151.26pt; display:inline-block } .sFF7D2F6E { width:151.23pt; display:inline-block } .s6EBDEFD4 { width:163.26pt; display:inline-block } .s88FE23B7 { width:175.91pt; display:inline-block } .s2502CA39 { width:152.57pt; display:inline-block } .s32C4CC7E { width:156.56pt; display:inline-block } .sA94B1C98 { width:111.92pt; display:inline-block } .sC779D1F9 { width:150.57pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3F0D191F { width:153.9pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s8100E912 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:97% } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .s28A7BD45 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:97% } .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   715   12.10.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING POLAND AND ITALY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following thirteen Chamber judgments concerning Poland and Italy. Only Chojak v. Poland and Polizzi v. Italy are final [1] .   SECTION 4   (1)     Chojak v. Poland (32220/96)   Struck out Jacek Chojak, a Polish national, complained that, after having been arrested on charges of robbery, he had not been brought promptly before a judge but before a prosecutor, and that his detention on remand had exceeded a reasonable time (more than one year). He relied on Article 5 §   3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge and entitlement to trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case has been struck out given the applicant’s failure to submit a memorial and to respond to the Court’s letters. The judgment is available only in English.   (2)     Polizzi v. Italy (45073/98)   Friendly settlement Natale Polizzi, an Italian national, complained about civil proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted more than thirteen years. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 9,000,000 Italian lira (ITL) is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage and ITL 3,849,920 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French).   (3)     Caputo v. Italy (45074/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Antonino Caputo, an Italian national, complained about civil proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted more than seven years and two months. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant ITL   16,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 5,000,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French).   (4)     Aldo Tripodi v. Italy (45078/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Aldo Tripodi, an Italian national, complained about civil proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted around fifty-one years and nine months. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant ITL 150,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 35,262,500 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French).   (5)     Fortunati v. Italy (45079/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Giuseppe Fortunati, an Italian national, complained about civil proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted more than twelve years. The Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant ITL   36,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 1,000,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French).   (6)     Altamura v. Italy (45084/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Giuseppe and Ciro Altamura, two Italian nationals, complained about civil proceedings to which they were parties, which lasted more than five years and nine months and are still pending. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicants ITL   10,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (Judgment in French).   (7)     Zurzolo v. Italy (45087/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Domenico Zurzolo, an Italian national, complained about civil proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted more than nine years and nine months. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant ITL   5,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL   5,000,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French).   (8)     Miola v. Italy (45098/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Leone Miola, an Italian national, complained about civil proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted more than eighteen years and four months. The Court 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 5,000,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French).   (9)     Pasquetti v. Italy (45101/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Massimo Pasquetti, an Italian national, complained about civil proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted more than seven years and five months and are still pending. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1 and awarded the applicant ITL   16,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (Judgment in French).   (10)     Trapani v. Italy (45104/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Francesco Trapani, an Italian national, complained about civil proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted more than seventeen years and five months. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1 and awarded the applicant ITL   24,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (Judgment in French).   (11)     Tullio D’Angelo v. Italy (45108/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Tullio D’Angelo, an Italian national, complained about civil proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted more than five years and five months. The Court held by five votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant ITL   15,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 3,000,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French).   (12)     Gibertini v. Italy (45109/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Maria Luisa Gibertini, an Italian national, complained about civil proceedings to which she was a party, which lasted five years and ten months. The Court 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 3,000,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French).   (13)     Grappio v. Italy (45110/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Giuseppina Grappio, an Italian national, complained about civil proceedings to which she was a party, which lasted eleven years and one month and are still pending. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1 and awarded the applicant ITL   32,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 5,000,000 for 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.