CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DAB1324 { width:5.92pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sAE582050 { width:18.51pt; display:inline-block } .sF43307A6 { width:17.2pt; display:inline-block } .sCBF3431F { width:16.58pt; display:inline-block } .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     249   5.4.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Switzerland and Italy     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following Chamber judgments [1] :     Section 2   (1)     H.B. v. Switzerland (no. 26899/95)              Violation Article 5 § 3                   No violation Article 5 § 2   H.B., a Swiss national, alleged that he was not adequately informed of the grounds of his detention on remand. He also complained of the role of the investigating judge in his case and that he did not have an effective remedy available to complain about his detention.   The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, on the ground that the applicant was not brought before an officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power.   Considering that the applicant was informed of the essential legal and factual grounds for his arrest and that he could, therefore, apply to a court to challenge its lawfulness, the Court further held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 2 of the Convention. The Court also held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), which the applicant had subsequently withdrawn.   The applicant was awarded 2,000 Swiss francs (CHF) for non-pecuniary damage and CHF 10,000 for legal costs. (The judgment exists in English and French.)         Friendly settlements The applicants in the following three 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 [2] . They 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 or pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. The judgments are available only in English.   (2)     Pavese v. Italy (no. 32388/96) 12 years, four months and ten days to evict tenant              ITL 70,000,000 (3)     De Leonardis v. Italy (no. 33529/96) approximately seven years and nine months              ITL 105,000,000 (4)     Tieghi v. Italy (no. 33253/96) almost ten years after which the owner discontinued the eviction proceedings and accepted the tenant’s proposal to stipulate a new lease      ITL 37,429,000     (5)     M.L. and others v. Italy (no. 53705/00)                   Friendly settlement The 47 applicants - all haemophiliacs or relatives of haemophiliacs who contracted hepatitis B or C or AIDS or who became HIV-positive following blood transfusions during the 1980s - complained, under Article 6 § 1, of the length of the civil proceedings to which they were parties, which lasted in the region of between five years and nine months and six years.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which a total of ITL 1,910,000,000 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary or pecuniary damage in addition to a total of ITL 20,000,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only 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.   [2] The time periods are calculated from the date of the expiry of each lease