CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCCFE9C79 { width:155.48pt; display:inline-block } .sAA5FE68F { width:107.49pt; display:inline-block } .s222F5912 { width:94.77pt; display:inline-block } .sB2EB289F { width:134.15pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s1D615842 { width:136.81pt; display:inline-block } .sCC9D28A6 { width:125.48pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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     668   3.10.2000   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 six Chamber judgments:   Section 3   (1) C.H. v. Austria (application no.27629/95)   Struck out   C.H., an Austrian national, complained that the Austrian courts disregarded the presumption of innocence when refusing his compensation claim for being detained on remand, because they found that a suspicion against him continued to exist, despite his acquittal. He complained under Article 6 § 2 (right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 50,000 Austrian schillings (ATS) is to be paid in compensation. The judgment is available only in English.   (2) Pobornikoff v. Austria (no.28501/95)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Dimiter Pobornikoff, a German national, complained about being denied access to a hearing dealing with a plea of nullity and an appeal before the Supreme Court, regarding his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of his wife. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been no violation of the Convention as regards his absence at the hearing concerning the plea of nullity, but that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) (right to legal assistance) regarding his absence in relation to the appeal. The applicant made no claim for just satisfaction. (Judgment in English)   (3) Eisenstecken v. Austria (no. 29477/95)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Herbert Eisenstecken, an Italian national, complained about the lack of a public hearing at real property transaction proceedings. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded him ATS 40,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in English)   (4) Löffler v. Austria (no. 30546/96)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Hans Peter Löffler, an Austrian national, complained about the length of re-opened criminal proceedings (four years and two months) against him, in relation to his conviction for murder. (He was subsequently acquitted.) The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and awarded him ATS 100,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ATS 20,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in English) (5) G.H. v. Austria [1] (no. 31266/96)   Violation Article 6 § 1   G.H., an Austrian national, complained about the length of civil proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted five years and six months. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded him ATS 35,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in English)   (6) Kanoun v. France (no. 35589/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Taoufik Kanoun, a French national, complained about the length of civil proceedings to which he was a party, regarding the division of property on divorce, which lasted around nineteen years and are still pending. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded him 100,000 French francs (FRF) for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 65,000 for costs and expenses. The judgment is available only 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.