CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 mars 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 } .sB220F3F2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sD3427EA2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s992BC9ED { width:23.16pt; display:inline-block } .s6247F1CD { width:17.17pt; display:inline-block } .s98A7B623 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s1C3491D { width:31.88pt; display:inline-block } .s71833996 { width:42.55pt; display:inline-block } .s680F572B { width:18.07pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sF62E5FE9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE24A6CD2 { width:20.11pt; display:inline-block } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .s147A4AAD { width:18pt; display:inline-block } .s8AFB426F { width:32.67pt; display:inline-block } .s68BA453A { width:7.99pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB20B16E1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     206   23.3.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING PORTUGAL         The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three chamber judgments concerning Portugal:   Section 4   1)   Velho da Costa de Abreu Rocha and Tito de Morais v. Portugal   (Application numbers 33436/96 & 33475/96)             Friendly settlement Armando José Velho da Costa de Abreu Rocha and João Manuel Mealha Tito de Morais, born in 1928 and 1939 and living in Lisbon and Estoril (Portugal) respectively, complained about the length of two sets of civil proceedings, which lasted ten years and 11 months overall. They invoked Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicants will each be paid 1,000,000 escudos (PTE) for any non-pecuniary damage and jointly 300,000 PTE for costs and expenses. The judgment exists only in French.     2)   Rodrigues Coelho Osório v. Portugal   (No. 36674/97)                      Friendly settlement   Maria Manuela Rodrigues Coelho Osório complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of her civil proceedings, which lasted more than seven years and two months. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which she will be paid 750,000 PTE plus 250,000 PTE for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French.)   3)   Conde v.Portugal [1]                      Violation Art. 6 § 1   (No. 37010/97)   Júlio Conde and Rosa Fernandes Conde complained about the length of their civil proceedings, which have lasted more than four years and seven months. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded each applicant 750,000 PTE for damage plus 250,000 PTE to them jointly 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) 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.