CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 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 } .s5F1C7C86 { width:6.15pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sE0EA7154 { width:21.33pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sEA5A698B { width:66.76pt; display:inline-block } .sE1E781D { width:141.47pt; display:inline-block } .s683A9ECB { width:31.23pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s173C6E87 { width:31.27pt; display:inline-block } .s6917BA3E { width:5.25pt; display:inline-block } .s6C8591A { width:13.22pt; display:inline-block } .sB813F217 { width:189.49pt; display:inline-block } .s15D54442 { width:5.22pt; display:inline-block } .s64B1589E { width:19.33pt; display:inline-block } .sB2A34B00 { width:14.66pt; display:inline-block } .sE2821D22 { width:0.58pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; 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       635     26.9.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING: France, Greece, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 10 Chamber judgments:     Section 1   (1)   Van Vlimmeren and van Ilverenbeek v. the Netherlands (application no. 25989/94)       Violation Article 6 § 1   Adrianus van Vlimmeren and Petrus van Ilverenbeek, both Netherlands nationals, complained about the length of the civil proceedings to which they were parties concerning compensation in relation to a land consolidation project. The proceedings lasted more than nine years. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights and dismissed the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. The judgment is available only in English.   Section 3   (2)      Biba v. Greece (no. 33170/96) [1]   Violation Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c)   Shpetim Biba, an Albanian national convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, complained that he was denied access to the Cassation Court since no legal aid was available and he was unable to pay for legal representation. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to legal assistance) of the Convention and awarded him 3,000,000 drachmas (GRD) for non-pecuniary damage and GRD 1,500,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French.)         (3)    J.B. v. France (no. 33634/96)     Violation Article 6 § 1   J.B., a French national, now deceased, complained about the administrative proceedings to which he was a party in connection with a tax inspection. He claimed the proceedings lasted nearly twelve years. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded 40,000 French francs for non-pecuniary damage. (Judgment in French.)   (4)   Guisset v. France (no. 33933/96)               Violation Article 6 § 1   Jean-Claude Guisset, a French national and French ambassador to the United Arab Emirates from 1977 to 1982, complained about the length of criminal proceedings against him, which lasted seven years and ten months, and the lack of a public procedure before a specialised tribunal, after he was accused of financial mismanagement. The Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the lack of a public hearing before the specialised tribunal and, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of the proceedings. By five votes to two, the Court awarded the applicant FRF 100,000 for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 40,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French.)   (5)   Oldham v. the United Kingdom (no. 36273/97)           Violation Article 5 § 4   Eric Oldham, a British national imprisoned for life for manslaughter, complained that the two-year delay between his Parole Board reviews concerning his release on licence was excessive. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to have the lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) and awarded the applicant 1,000 pounds sterling (GBP) for non-pecuniary damage and GBP 500 minus FRF 4,100 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in English.)   (6)   Donati v. France (no. 37989/97)                       Struck Out   Max and Eliane Donati, both French nationals, complained about the length of the civil proceedings to which they were parties for the reimbursement, with interest, of a loan for which they had acted as guarantors. The proceedings lasted more than five years and six months. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which FRF 50,000 is to be paid for any damage. (Judgment in French.)   (7)   Perié v. France (no. 38701/97)                      Struck Out   Jean Perié, a French national, complained about the length of the civil proceedings to which he was a party, regarding the non-payment of a bank loan by his insurance company due to his inability to work. The proceedings lasted more than six years. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which FRF 20,000 is to be paid for any damage. (Judgment in French.)   (8)   Camilla v. France (no. 38840/97)   Struck out   Antoine and Marie-Lucie Camilla, French nationals, complained about the civil proceedings to which they were parties, regarding a real estate contract, which lasted more than five years and six months. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which FRF 10,000 is to be paid for any damage. (Judgment in French) (9)   Garcia v. France (no. 41001/98)                   Violation Article 6 § 1   Joseph-Gilbert Garcia, a French national, complained about the length of the administrative proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted six years, regarding the refusal to renew an extended hours licence for a disco. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant FRF 40,000 for non-pecuniary damage plus 12,200. (Judgment in French.)   (10)   Dagorn v. France (no. 42175/98)               Violation Article 6 § 1   Jean-Jacques Dagorn, a French national, complained about the administrative proceedings to which he was a party concerning a public body’s (the COTOREP ) refusal to employ him due to his disability. The proceedings lasted six years and eight months. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant FRF 30,000 for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 15,000 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.