CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 avril 2001

.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 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2F81A130 { width:4.44pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s34A08E0D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sECB6A553 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s63EB1169 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s641714D8 { width:32.4pt; display:inline-block } .s1B561845 { width:23.78pt; display:inline-block } .s7F64397A { width:26.83pt; display:inline-block } .sC9642B6A { width:30.28pt; display:inline-block } .s7AF76660 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super } .sC8153478 { width:16.32pt; display:inline-block } .sA3049DAA { width:17.66pt; display:inline-block } .sFD09C911 { width:6.96pt; display:inline-block } .sDB3A5172 { width:14.13pt; display:inline-block } .s4C045B36 { width:5.44pt; display:inline-block } .s1512A1E0 { width:31.9pt; display:inline-block } .s329D184A { width:14.61pt; display:inline-block } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s3C87CB22 { width:3.22pt; display:inline-block } .sB38C3C01 { width:3.83pt; display:inline-block } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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   280   19.4.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Slovakia and Italy     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following Chamber judgments:   Section 2   (1)     Marônek v. Slovakia (no. 32686/96) [1]                      Violation Article 10   Vladimir Marônek, a Slovak national, complained about judicial decisions in defamation proceedings which resulted in his being ordered to pay compensation equivalent to 25 times the average monthly salary at the relevant time (200,000 Slovak korunas (SKK) plus costs of SKK 11,652.50).   The case concerned his failure to gain possession of a State-owned studio flat allocated to him, which was occupied by A.   On 8 November 1991 the daily newspaper Smena published an article about the issue and, on 5 February 1992, the applicant wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister, as a result of which, both Mr Marônek and the newspaper were sued for defamation by A. and his wife H., a public prosecutor. The applicant alleged that his right to freedom of expression was violated, that the courts disregarded the evidence proving the truthfulness of his statements and that the compensation he was ordered to pay was excessive.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the purpose of the applicant’s letter was not exclusively to resolve his individual problem; he urged others with a similar problem to take joint action. He expressed the view, apparently in good faith, that the resolution of the issue was important for strengthening the rule of law in a newly-born democracy and raised issues of public interest, capable of affecting housing policy at a period when State-owned apartments were about to be denationalised. Taken as a whole, his statements did not appear excessive and most of the events on which he had relied had been made public earlier in the article in Smena .   Furthermore, and most importantly, the Court found a disparity between the measures complained of and the behaviour they were intended to rectify. In particular, the reasons invoked by the domestic courts did not appear sufficiently convincing to justify the relatively high amount of compensation awarded to the claimants. There was therefore no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the measures applied by the domestic courts and the legitimate aim pursued. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded the applicant, for pecuniary damage, SKK 221,522 to cover the damages and costs he had been ordered to pay A. and H., plus any costs of enforcement proceedings for which he might be liable, as well as SKK 20,070 for his own costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.) Friendly settlements The applicants in the following cases complained about their prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of their apartments and about the duration of the eviction proceedings. (The periods given below are calculated from the date of the expiry of each lease, unless otherwise indicated.) The applicants relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which the following amounts, in Italian lire (ITL), are to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   (2)     Tarducci v. Italy (no. 31460/96) over eight years and eight months to evict the tenant                       ITL 50,000,000 (3)     D.L. and M.A. v. Italy (no. 31926/96) approximately 10 years                                                      ITL 35,000,000 each (two applicants)   (4)     L.M.G. v. Italy (no. 32655/96) over 11 years and three months [**]                    ITL 30,000,000 (5)     M.P. and others v. Italy (no. 32664/96) over 17 years and three months and still pending                           ITL   65,000,000 (6)     Gefima Immobiliare s.r.l. v. Italy (no. 33943/96) over 16 years and five months **                                               ITL 80,000,000     Friendly settlements The applicants in the following cases complained, under Article 6 § 1, about the length of civil proceedings to which they were parties. In Bánošová v. Slovakia , proceedings lasted 10 years and five months, and, in Čapčíková v. Slovakia, there were three sets of proceedings, lasting six years and six months, eight years and six months and nearly a year. The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which the following sums are to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English).   (7)     Bánošová v. Slovakia (no. 38798/97),                   SKK 125,000 (8)     Čapčíková v. Slovakia (no. 38853/97),                   SKK 200,000   ***   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.   [**] The period given is calculated from the date the writ was served on the tenant.