CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 février 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sF276B134 { width:111.83pt; display:inline-block } .s9E57CF9C { width:342.34pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4336334F { width:32.42pt; display:inline-block } .s25D4CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     80   6.2.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Austria and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments (only Beer v. Austria and Wilkinson and Allen v. the United Kingdom are final).   SECTION 3   (1)     Beer v. Austria (application no. 30428/96)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Gertrude Beer, an Austrian national, was awarded costs following her successful action before the Vienna Labour and Social Court to have a decision by her employer annulled, concerning her transfer from one hospital department to another. Her employer appealed against the costs order, which led to a reduction in the amount awarded to her, from 33,658 Austrian Schillings (ATS) to ATS 14,754. Ms Beer complained that, because she was not informed of her employer’s appeal, she did not have an opportunity to react.   The European Court of Human Rights found that the failure to communicate the appeal and lack of opportunity for the applicant to reply infringed the principle of equality of arms, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that a finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by Ms Beer. The Court awarded her ATS 80,000 for costs and expenses. The judgment is available only in English.   (2)     Wilkinson and Allen v. United Kingdom (nos. 31145/96 and 35580/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Mark Wilkinson and Kevin Allen, both British nationals, were both tried by district courts-martial convened under the Army Act 1955, while serving in the British Army. Mr Wilkinson pleaded guilty to the armed forces’ disciplinary offence of taking absence without leave and Mr Allen to two charges of possession of controlled drugs, contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. They both complained that they did not have a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. Mark Wilkinson also complained that he did not have a public hearing.   The Court found that a district army court-martial convened under the Army Act 1955 did not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in view, in particular, of the central part played by the convening officer [1] . The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that a finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants. It awarded them 1988.10 pounds sterling (GBP) and GBP 1022.25 respectively for costs and expenses. (Judgment in English)   (3)     Bensaid v. United Kingdom (no. 44599/98) [2]   No violation Articles 3, 8 and 13   Abdel Kader Bensaid, an Algerian national, who has lived in the United Kingdom with only short absences since 2 May 1989 and is currently undergoing treatment for schizophrenia, complained that his proposed expulsion to Algeria would leave him without adequate medical treatment, threatening his physical and moral integrity.   The Court observed that the applicant was receiving medication, olanzapine, which would not be available to him free as an outpatient in Algeria. However, it would be available if he were admitted as an inpatient and might be available on payment as an outpatient. Alternative medication was also likely to be available. The Court further noted that the applicant faced the risk of relapse even if he stayed in the United Kingdom. The Court found that the risk of damage to the applicant’s health from his return to Algeria was based on largely hypothetical factors and that it was not substantiated that he would suffer inhuman and degrading treatment. Nor had it been established that his moral integrity would be substantially affected to a degree falling within the scope of Article 8 (right to respect for family life) of the Convention.   The Court was also satisfied that the domestic courts gave careful and detailed scrutiny to claims that an expulsion would expose the applicant to a risk of inhuman and degrading treatment. The substance of his complaint was examined by the Court of Appeal, which had the power to afford him the relief he sought.   The Court held unanimously that the implementation of the decision to expel the applicant from the United Kingdom would not violate Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), 8 or 13 (right to an effective remedy). (Judgment 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] See also Findlay v. the United Kingdom (25 February 1997), Coyne v. the United Kingdom (24 September 1997) and Cable and Others v. the United Kingdom (18 February 1999) [2] 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.