CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sFFEF422A { width:7.17pt; display:inline-block } .s919EC34E { width:13.86pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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   290   24.4.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Italy and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following Chamber judgments [1] :   Section 1   (1)     Guerresi v. Italy (application no. 32646/96)                                        Violation Article 6 § 1 Giannino Guerresi, an Italian national, complained about the length of criminal proceedings (lasting approximately six years and seven months) to which he was a party.   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 awarded the applicant 35,000,000 Italian lire for non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Section 3   (2)     B. v. the United Kingdom and P. v. the United Kingdom (36337/97 and 35974/97)       No violation Article 6 § 1   The applicants, B., born in 1963 and living in Brighton, and P., born in 1949 and living in London, are both British nationals. Both instituted County Court proceedings to order to gain custody of their sons and asked for a public hearing and public delivery of the judgments. B.’s case was heard in camera throughout. The judge dealing with the case ordered that no documents used in the proceedings should be disclosed outside the court and also, B. alleged, warned him that any publication of information obtained in the context of the proceedings would amount to contempt of court.   P.’s case was held in camera, although his second application was heard in open court.   Both applicants complained that their cases were not heard in public and that their judgments were not publicly announced. They further complained that they were barred from divulging information about the proceedings, in violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Concerning the hearings held in camera, the Court noted that the proceedings in question concerned the residence of each man’s son following the parents’ divorce or separation, which were prime examples of cases where the exclusion of the press and public might be justified to protect the privacy of the child and parties and to avoid prejudicing the interests of justice. To enable the deciding judge to gain as full and accurate a picture as possible of the advantages and disadvantages of the various residence and contact options open to the child, it was essential that the parents and other witnesses felt able to express themselves candidly on highly personal issues without fear of public curiosity or comment.   Concerning the publication of the judgments in question, the Court observed that anyone who could establish an interest was able to consult or obtain a copy of the full text of the orders and/or judgments of first instance courts in child residence cases, and that the judgments of the Court of Appeal and of first instance courts in cases of special interest were routinely published, enabling the public to study the manner in which the courts generally approach such cases and the principles applied in deciding them.   The Court held, by 5 votes to 2 that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention either regarding the applicants’ complaints about public hearings or the public pronouncement of judgments. The Court also held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaint under Article 10. (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.