CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 janvier 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s8AFB426F { width:32.67pt; display:inline-block } .sD3427EA2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3FAF973C { width:22pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .s8242CF8E { width:39.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS       66   26.1.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   33 CHAMBER JUDGMENTS FINDING VIOLATIONS OF RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL   The following 33 chamber judgments [1] have been notified in writing on 25 January 2000 by the European Court of Human Rights.     Section 3   1)   Slimane-Kaïd v. France (application number 29507/95)   The Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights in the case of Mohamed Slimane-Kaïd , a French national born in 1941 and living in Elancourt. The case concerns the non-communication to the applicant or his counsel of a conseiller rapporteur’s report, which had been available to the Avocat Général in proceedings before the Court of Cassation.     Section 4   2)   Miragall Escolano and others v. Spain (38366/97)   The Court has found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in the above case, which concerns applications from ten pharmacists, all Spanish nationals. They complained that their compensation claims were rejected as being out of time because the time limit was calculated as starting from the date of delivery of the relevant judgment, rather than from the date on which the judgment was published in the State gazette or the date on which it was served on the General Council of Pharmacists.     Section 3   3)   29 length of proceedings cases in respect of Italy   The Court has found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) in 29 length of procedure cases in respect of Italy [2] . Section 3   4)   Length of proceedings case in respect of France (33207/96)   The Court has found a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of administrative proceedings in a land consolidation project in the case of Blaisot v. France, concerning two French applicants with land in Huberville, France. Just satisfaction of 40,000 francs was awarded for non-pecuniary damage.   Section 2   5)   Length of proceedings case in respect of Greece (37439/97)   The Court has found a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of criminal proceedings in the case of Agga v. Greece. Mehmet Agga is a Greek national born in 1932 and living in Xanthi. Just satisfaction of 2,000,000 Greek Drachmas was awarded for non-pecuniary damage.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.dhcour.coe.fr ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92) or   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 1959 in Strasbourg 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.   [2] Paderni v. Italy (Nº 35994/97), Petix v. Italy (Nº 40923/98), Latersole s.r.l. v. Italy (Nº 40924/98), D'Onofrio v. Italy (Nº 40925/98), Fazio v. Italy (Nº 40926/98), Reina v. Italy (Nº 40927/98), Battistelli v. Italy (Nº 40928/98), Scarano v. Italy (Nº 40929/98), Giorgio v. Italy (Nº 40930/98), Maroni v. Italy (Nº 40931/98), Morese v. Italy (Nº 40932/98), Tarsia and others v. Italy (Nº 40933/98), Sacchi v. Italy (Nº 40934/98), Vinci v. Italy (Nº 40935/98), Cecere v. Italy (Nº 40936/98), Binelis and Nanni v. Italy (Nº 40937/98), Manca v. Italy (Nº 40938/98), Mataluni v. Italy (Nº 40940/98), Glebe Viconti v. Italy (Nº 40941/98), Giannetti and De Lisi v. Italy (Nº 40942/98), Salvadori and Gardin v. Italy (Nº 40943/98), Adamo v. Italy (Nº 40944/98), Siega and others v. Italy (Nº 40945/98), Tripodi v. Italy (Nº 40946/98), Abbate v. Italy (Nº 40947/98), Ronzulli v. Italy (Nº 40948/98), Nardone v. Italy (Nº 40949/98), Liddo and others v. Italy (Nº 40950/98), Cappellaro v. Italy (Nº 40951/98).