CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 septembre 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 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sE25D4327 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-36pt; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3B1D034 { width:22.56pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s84C82F45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s8567D65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-36pt } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sE9E4B253 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sDA9294EE { width:247.62pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB14E36E8 { width:22.56pt; display:inline-block } .sEB050B31 { width:15.51pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     614   19.9.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING THE UNITED KINGDOM, FRANCE AND TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three chamber judgments concerning the United Kingdom, France and Turkey.   Chamber (Section 3)   (1)                Glaser   v. United Kingdom [1] (application no. 32346/96) No violation Articles 8, 6 § 1 or 9.   Maric Glaser, a British national born in 1946 in India and living in the United Kingdom complained under Article 8 (right to respect for family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights about the alleged failure of the English and Scottish courts to enforce access arrangements between him and his children, following his wife’s refusal to comply with court orders. He also claimed that the proceedings relating to his rights of contact with his children, which lasted three years, 11 months and 13 days, were excessively long, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention. Also under Article 6 § 1, he complained that he was denied legal aid and alleged that the County Court judge had intervened unfairly during a hearing concerning the case. Under Article 9 (freedom of religion), he alleged that the courts openly rejected his Catholic belief that divorce was wrong and took the view that his refusal to accept the divorce contributed to his former wife’s opposition to his seeing the children.       The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been no violation of Articles 8, 6 § 1 or 9. The judgment is available only in English.     Chamber (Section 3)   (2)                Gnahoré v. France 1 (no.40031/98)   No violation Articles 6 § 1 or 8   The applicant is Benjamin Gnahoré, a national of the Côte d’Ivoire born in 1952 and living in Villeurbanne (France). On 14 January 1992 he took his third child, C., (born in France in 1988), to the ophthalmic unit of the Herriot Hospital in Lyons. C., whose eyes were bruised and who had a wound on his right forearm, a scratch on his abdomen and old scars on his face, was admitted to hospital.   The Lyons Public Prosecutor's Office was informed of C’s condition and the police began inquiries. By an order of 15 January 1992, the Principal Public Prosecutor's Office placed C. into the care of the Child-Welfare Office (ASE) for the Rhône département . C. was examined by a doctor on 16 January who concluded that the injuries may have resulted from ill-treatment. On 17 January 1992, the applicant was charged with assault with intent by an ascendant on a child aged under fifteen. A discharge order was made on 26 May 1993 on the ground that there was insufficient evidence. C. remains in care.   Mr Gnahoré complained under Article 8 (right to respect for family life) about his son being placed in care, that the care order remained in force despite the discharge order of 26 May 1993 and of the tight restrictions on his right of access. He also complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) that the legal-aid office at the Court of Cassation and the Senior President of that court had dismissed his application for legal aid finding that there were no reasonable grounds for appeal.   The Government maintained that the applicant could have represented himself before the Court of Cassation and that, in failing to do so, he had not exhausted domestic remedies.   The European Court of Human Rights unanimously rejected the Government’s claim of non-exhaustion. It also held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court held unanimously that there had been no violations of Article 8 concerning either the measures taken before the discharge order of 26 May or the maintenance of the care order after the order was made. It further found, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 8 concerning the restrictions on contact between the applicant and his son after the 26 May discharge order.   The judgment is available only in French.   Chamber (Section 1)   (3)   Yakan v. Turkey (no. 43362/98)               Struck out   Osman Nuri Yakan, a Turkish national, complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the criminal proceedings against him, which he claimed, were still pending in March 1999, following his appeal against his conviction of 19 July 1989. The court has struck out the case following the applicant’s repeated failure to respond to its letters.   The judgment is available only in English.   ***   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.