CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 17 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 } .s198BF29E { width:35.17pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF5473F9E { width:19.93pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s1188E1D8 { width:5.99pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s5116A3BA { width:28.52pt; display:inline-block } .s2DF49AA6 { width:24.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sBEE7C1D9 { width:25.27pt; display:inline-block } .sACDDC807 { width:17.25pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s1FEA0ECC { width:11.23pt; 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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   733   17.10.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING: BELGIUM, FRANCE, GREECE, ITALY AND TURKEY.   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 21 Chamber judgments.   Section 1   (1)     Karataş and Boğa v. Turkey (application no. 24669/94)            Friendly settlement   Seher Karataş and Güven   Boğa, both Turkish nationals, are, respectively, the editor and owner of Gençliğin Sesi Dergis ( The Voice of Youth Magazine ). On 5 February 1994, they were arrested while covering the funeral of a member of the Türkiye Devrimci Komünist Partisi (Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey) at the Kocatepe Cemetery in Ümraniye, Istanbul, as demonstrations were taking place. They complained that they were ill-treated by police both at the time of their arrest and while being held in police custody, in violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 85,000 French francs (FRF) is to be paid to each applicant for any damage and costs and expenses. The judgment is available only in English.   Section 3   (2)     L. C. v. Belgium   (no. 30346/96)                             Friendly settlement   L.C., a Belgium national, complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), about the length of the criminal proceedings (more than six years and seven months) issued against him for misappropriation of funds in a solicitor’s office. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 300,000 Belgian francs is to be paid. The judgment is available only in French.   (3)     De Moucheron and Others v. France   (no. 37051/97)                   Violation Article 6 § 1   Eight French nationals, Laure de Moucheron, Jacqueline   Grellet des Prades de Fleurelle, Hélène de la Poeze d’Harambure, François Le Gouz de Saint-Seine, Etienne Le   Gouz de Saint Seine, Marie Reille-Soult de Dalmatie, Jean-François Reille-Soult de Dalmatie and Xavier Reille-Soult de Dalmatie, complained about the length of criminal proceedings to which they were civil parties following the burglary of their châteaux. The proceedings lasted eleven years, seven months and twenty-eight days for the Le Gouz de Saint-Seine family, eleven years and eleven days for the Reille-Soult de Dalmatie family and four years and nine months for the de Moucheron family. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded   20,000 French francs (FRF) for non-pecuniary damage to Laure de Moucheron and Jacqueline   Grellet des Prades de Fleurelle respectively,   FRF 40,000 each to the le Gouz de Saint-Seine et Reille Soult de Dalmatie families and   FRF 24,120 for costs and expenses to the de Moucheron, le Gouz de Saint-Seine and Reille-Soult de Dalmatie families. (Judgment in French)   (4)     Karakasis v. Greece   (no. 38194/97)             Violation Article 6 § 1   Charilaos Karakasis, a Greek national, complained that he had been denied a hearing in connection with his entitlement to compensation for his detention on remand following his arrest on charges of fraud and issuing of uncovered cheques and that the relevant decision did not contain reasons. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §1 both in respect of the Court of Appeal’s failure to hear the applicant and in respect of the absence of any reasoning in the Court’s decision. Mr Karakasis was awarded two million drachmas for non-pecuniary damage. (Judgment in English)   (5)     Klavdianos v. Greece (no. 38841/97)                 Friendly settlement   Georgios Klavdianos complained that the seizure of his house in order to secure the payment of a debt owed by a company from which he had resigned before its dissolution, constituted degrading treatment and violated his right to property, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) . He also complained that he was discriminated against on grounds of nationality, in breach of Article 14, and that, despite his resignation, he was compelled to remain in office against his will, in breach of Article   4 §   2 (prohibition of forced labour). In addition, he complained, under Article 6 § 1, that his case was not heard within a reasonable time. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which he is to be paid 2,500,000 Greek drachmas. (Judgment in English)     Section 1   Violation Article 6 § 1   In the following length-of-proceedings cases, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The applicants are Italian nationals and the judgments exist only in French.   (6)     Nunzio Conte v. Italy [i] (no. 32765/96)              Nunzio Conte, more than six years and ten months. Awarded 12,000,000 Italian lire (ITL) for non-pecuniary damage.   (7)     O. v. Italy   (no. 44335/98)               More than 17 years and eight months and still pending. Awarded ITL 56,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   (8)     Silveri v. Italy (no. 44353/98) Angelo Silveri, nine years and four months, ITL 19,000,000 non-pecuniary damage and ITL 5,000,000 costs and expenses.   (9)     Mazzotti v. Italy   (no. 44354/98) Pierluigi Mazzotti, more than 24 years and ten months, ITL 89,000,000 non-pecuniary damage and ITL 5,000,000 costs and expenses.   (10)     Palazzo v. Italy   (no. 44356/98)   Andrea Palazzo, more than 15 years, ITL 20,000,000 non-pecuniary damage, ITL 5,000,000 costs.   (11)     Palombo v. Italy   (no. 44358/98) Vincenzo Palombo, more than 28 years and eight months, ITL 89,000,000 non-pecuniary damage.   (12)     Lippera Zaniboni v. Italy   (no. 45055/98) Carla Lippera Zaniboni, more than 14 years and nine months, ITL 15,000,000 non-pecuniary damage, ITL 5,870,000 costs.   (13)     Studio Tecnico Amu S.a.s. v. Italy   (no. 45056/98) Studio Tecnico Amu S.a.s, around 12 years and two months and still pending, ITL 25,000,000 non-pecuniary damage, ITL 2,000,0000 costs.   (14)     Bono v. Italy   (no. 45059/98) Pietro Bono, more than 13 years and five months, ITL 35,000,000 non-pecuniary damage and ITL 5,000,000 costs.   (15)     X200 S.r.l. v. Italy (no. 45060/98) X200 S.r.l., more than ten years and nine months, ITL 10,000,000 non-pecuniary damage, ITL 2,000,000 costs.   (16)     S.S. v. Italy (no. 45061/98) More than nine years and seven months, ITL 20,000,000 non-pecuniary damage, ITL 1,000,000 costs.   (17)     Ficara v. Italy   (no. 45062/98) Domenico Ficara, more than seven years and four months, ITL 10,000,000 non-pecuniary damage, ITL 4,300,000 costs.   (18)     Mari v. Italy (no. 45063/98) Eleonora Mari, more than ten years and eleven months (still pending), ITL 18,000,000 non-pecuniary damage, ITL 5,000,000 costs.   (19)     Von Berger v. Italy (no. 45064/98) Icilio and Luciano Von Berger, more than seven years and one month, ITL 16,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 500,000 costs. Friendly Settlements   The following length-of-proceedings cases have been struck out following a friendly settlement. The applicants are Italian nationals and the judgments exist only in French.   (20)     Musmeci v. Italy (no. 44355/98)           Fransecsca Musmeti, 14 years and six months, a total of ITL 13,500,000 for any damage and costs.   (21)     Rettura v. Italy (no. 45058/98) Luigi Rettura, more than 18 years, ITL 60,000,000 for any damage and ITL 1,000,000 costs.   ***   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.