CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 février 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s18D73244 { width:148.81pt; display:inline-block } .s9D676285 { width:117.49pt; display:inline-block } .s957D7893 { width:181.27pt; display:inline-block } .s49DAA3DF { width:108.14pt; display:inline-block } .sFE40E937 { width:138.81pt; display:inline-block } .sEB822B3C { width:128.83pt; display:inline-block } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD4F11D9D { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; background-color:#00ffff } .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 } .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     134   27.2.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Belgium, France, Hungary, Italy and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 42 Chamber judgments (only Alpay v. Turkey,   R. v. Belgium, Santelli v. France and Milazzotto v. Italy are final [1] ).   SECTION 1   (1)     Ecer and Zeyrek v. Turkey (application nos. 29295/95 & 29363/95) Violation Article 7 § 1 The applicants, convicted in May 1994 for assisting an illegal organisation and sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment, complained that a heavier penalty was imposed on them than was applicable at the time the offences were committed. They complained that the application of Law No. 3713 of 12 April 1991 to offences committed in 1988 and 1989 constituted retrospective punishment, in breach of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention (no punishment without law).   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 7 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded each of the applicants 7,500 American Dollars (USD) for non-pecuniary damage and USD 3,000 for costs. The judgment is available only in English.   (2)     Alpay v. Turkey (no. 30947/96)   Friendly settlement (3)     İsmihan Özel and others v. Turkey (no. 31963/96) Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Ali Alpay and İsmihan, Habibe and Raziye Özel are all Turkish nationals. They complained in relation to delays in the payment of compensation due to them following the expropriation of their property. They alleged, under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 (protection of property) of the Convention, that the compensation they received did not reflect the real increase in inflation during the period between the date the amount was fixed and the date of payment. The applicants in İsmihan Özel and others v. Turkey also relied on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Alpay v. Turkey has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 75,000 US Dollars (USD) is to be paid for any damages, costs and expenses. (Judgment in French). In İsmihan Özel and others v. Turkey , the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that it was not necessary to rule on the complaints raised under Article 14. The Court awarded each   applicant USD 90,978 for pecuniary damage and USD 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (Judgment in French)   Section 3   (4)     R. v. Belgium (no. 33919/96)   Not examined on the merits The applicant, a Belgian national and reserve officer, alleged he was injured during military training operations which took place in 1976. He complained that proceedings concerning his claim for a disability pension lasted more than 22 years. (He was awarded a provisional pension in 1999). Relying on Article 6 § 1 he complained of the length and lack of fairness of the proceedings.   The Court considered that, as the proceedings did not concern a civil right or obligation, Article 6 § 1 did not apply. The judgment is available only in French.   (5)     Adoud and Bosoni v. France (nos. 35237/97 and 34595/97) Violation Article 6 § 1   Alain Adoud and Michel Bosoni, both French nationals, were given fines and temporarily banned from driving for traffic offences. They complained they were not given the conclusions of the Advocate General before the Court of Cassation and therefore had no possibility to reply, not having been notified of the cassation hearing date because they were not represented by specialised cassation lawyers. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded each applicant 10,000 FRF for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   (6)     Abdouni v. France (no. 37838/97)   Struck out Mohamed Abdouni, an Algerian national who has lived in France from the age of six months, complained, under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), about the decision to impose a definitive prohibition order on him, excluding him from French territory.   The Court has unanimously decided to strike out the case finding that the decision in question was annulled by a judgment of 6 January 2000 and that the matter had been resolved. (Judgment in French)   (7)     Donnadieu v. France (no. 39066/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Jean-Pierre Donnadieu, a French national was placed against his will in a psychiatric hospital in 1969. Believing his confinement to be illegal, he started proceedings against the hospital with the administrative tribunal in Montpellier in 1994. He also started separate proceedings in 1995 for compensation. Relying on Article 6 § 1, he complained of the length of the proceedings, which are still pending.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 15,000 FRF for non-pecuniary damage and 8,000 FRF for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   (8)     Santelli v. France (no. 40717/98)   Friendly settlement Pierre Santelli, a French national complained, under Article 6 § 1, about excessively long administrative proceedings concerning building permits, lasting up to nine years.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 40,000 FRF is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. (Judgment   in French)   (9)     Cultraro v. Italy (no. 45880/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 In November 1980 Giovanna Cultraro, an Italian national, started proceedings against M.T. concerning the admission of paternity of her son, born in 1975. She complained of the length of civil proceedings which took almost nineteen years and five months, relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article 8.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and, by six votes to one, that it was not necessary to consider the complaint raised under Article 8. The Court awarded the applicant 60,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 20,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   SECTION 1   (10)   Milazzotto v. Italy (no. 35345/97)     Friendly settlement Gaetano Milazzotto, an Italian national complained about the civil proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted 12 years and three months.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 36,000,000 ITL is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage and 5,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)     Violation Article 6 § 1 In the following thirty-two Italian cases, the applicants complained about the length of the civil proceedings to which they were parties. They relied on Article 6 § 1, claiming their civil rights were not decided within a reasonable time.   The European Court of Human Rights found unanimously in each case (except in Liberatore v. Italy, by six votes to one) that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. In two cases, Pettirossi v. Italy and Tagliabue v. Italy, it was not considered necessary to examine a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The amounts awarded for damages, costs and expenses are listed below. All thirty-two judgments are available only in French.   (11)     Galatà and others v. Italy (no. 35956/97) (eight years and six months) 20,000,000 ITL non-pecuniary and 1,038,190 ITL for costs and expenses (12)     Giampietro v. Italy (no. 37170/97) (seven years) 21,000,000 ITL non-pecuniary and 5,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses (13)     Ciotta v. Italy (no. 41804/98) (more than nine years and one month) 24,000,000 ITL and 3,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses (14)     Arivella v. Italy (no. 41805/98) (more than 12 years and four months) 36,000,000 ITL and 3,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses (15)     Alesiani and 510 others v. Italy (no. 41806/98) (more than eight years) 200,000 ITL to each applicant and 1,000,000 ITL to the applicant who acted as a representative for the others for costs and expenses. (16)     Comitini v. Italy (no. 41811/98) (more than ten years and five months) The applicant made no just satisfaction claims. ( 17)     Pettirossi v. Italy (no. 44380/98) (started on 1 February 1990, still pending 27 February 2001) 28,000,000 ITL non-pecuniary damages. (18)     Cornaglia v. Italy (no. 44385/98) (more than 11 years and six months for three instances) 16,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damages.   (19)     Liberatore v. Italy (no. 44394/98) (more than four years and seven months) six votes to one violation Article 6 § 1. The applicant made no just satisfaction claims. (20)     Visentin v. Italy (no. 44395/98) (started on 31 October 1986 and still pending on 8 March 2000) 30,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damages and 4,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (21)     G.B. v. Italy (no. 44397/98) (started on 9 May 1987 and still pending on 20 October 2000) 40,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damages and 3,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (22)     Valentino v. Italy (no. 44398/98) (more than 15 years and nine months) 48,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damages and 3,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (23)     Salzano v. Italy (no. 44404/98) (started on 9 May 1989 and still pending on 7 December 2000) no claims for just satisfaction (24)     M. S.r.l. v. Italy (no. 44406/98) (a little more than nine years and ten months for two instances) 16,000,000 ITL for damages. (25)     Tagliabue v. Italy (no. 44417/98) (started on 23 February 1989, still pending 18 March 2000) 28,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damages. (26)     Sbrojavacca-Pietrobon v. Italy (no. 44419/98) (more than ten years and 11 months) 17,400,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damages. (27)     Mauri v. Italy (no. 44420/98) (around seven years and nine months) 15,388,968 ITL for non-pecuniary damages and 1,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (28)     Marzinotto v. Italy (no. 44422/98) (more than 14 years and three months for three instances) 24,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damages and 3,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (29)     Michele Tedesco v. Italy (no. 44425/98) (around five years) 10,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damages and 3,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (30)     Beluzzi and others v. Italy (no. 44431/98) (around 11 years and 11 months for two instances) 20,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damages and 1,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses to each applicant. (31)     Berlani v. Italy (no. 44435/98) (started on 7 September 1990, still pending on 27 February 2001) no claims for just satisfaction. (32)     Buffalo s.r.l. v. Italy (no. 44436/98) (started on 13 May 1991, still pending 27 February 2001) 10,000,000 ITL for damages and 1,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (33)     Bocca v. Italy (no. 44437/98) (started on 5 June 1989 and still pending on 27 February 2001) 20,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damages. (34)     Traspadini v. Italy (no. 44439/98) (a little more than nine years and three months) 15,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damages. (35)     Bevilacqua v. Italy (no. 44442/98) (a little more than six years and two months) 12,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damages and 4,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (36)     Marchi v. Italy (no. 44443/98) (more than eight years) 12,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damages and 4,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (37)     W.I.E. S.n.c. v. Italy (no. 44445/98) (more than 11 years and ten months) 15,000,000 ITL for damages and 5,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (38)     Ianniti and others v. Italy (no. 44447/98) (started on 7 December 1989 and still pending on 2 February 2001) 12,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damages and 800,000 ITL for costs and expenses to each applicant. (39)     Adriani v. Italy (no. 46515/99) (around six years and one month) 12,000,000 ITL for ono-pecuniary damages and 4,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (40)     Gianni v. Italy (no. 47773/99) (started on16 December 1993, still pending on 21 December 2000) 12,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damages and 4,300,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (41)     Conti v. Italy (no. 47774/99) (more than 17 years and four months for two instances) 48,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damages and 3,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (42)     Ilardi v. Italy (no. 47777/99) (around nine years and ten months for three instances) 8,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damages.   ***   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.