CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 janvier 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB799DED { width:67.27pt; display:inline-block } .s739FE3B3 { width:83.77pt; display:inline-block } .s456C5FCA { width:34.86pt; display:inline-block } .sFF41F2B5 { width:172.38pt; display:inline-block } .s425DD378 { width:146.7pt; display:inline-block } .sF9E11CB6 { width:39.74pt; display:inline-block } .s25D4CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .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   11   11.1.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING: Greece, Hungary and Italy   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments [1] :   SECTION 2   In the following three Italian cases, the applicants complained that they were unable to regain possession of their apartments because they were not granted police assistance to evict their tenants.   (1)     Lunari v. Italy (no. 21463/93)   Violation Art. 6 § 1 and Art 1 of Prot. No. 1 Fulvio Lunari is an Italian national living in Rome with an apartment in Pescara. The process lasted six years, from 30 June 1987 until 2 July 1993.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of both Article 1 of Protocol No.1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded the applicant 330,000 Italian lire (ITL) for pecuniary damage, ITL 15,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 5,800,00 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (2)     Tanganelli v. Italy (no. 23424/94)   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No.1 Angelo Tanganelli is an Italian national with an apartment in Florence. The process lasted 12 years from 1 January 1983 until 20 January 1995. He died on 29 November 1997   The Court held unanimously that the applicant’s wife and daughter had a legitimate interest in continuing the case and that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1. The applicant was awarded ITL 36,318,060 for pecuniary damage, 15,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 14,726,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   (3)     P.M. v. Italy (no. 24650/94)   Violations Art. 6 § 1, Art. 14 and Art.1 of Prot. No. 1 P.M. is an Italian national with an apartment in Venice. The process lasted 16 years and three months, from 31 December 1983 until 31 March 2000. She died on 10 September 1999,   The Court held unanimously that the applicant’s husband had a legitimate interest in continuing the case and that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 and Article 6 § 1 and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). The applicant was awarded       ITL 27,784,000 for pecuniary damage, ITL 20,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 2,000,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French) (4)     N.C. v. Italy (no. 24952/94)   No violation Article 5 § 5 N.C., an Italian national born in Bari and living in Valenzano, complained that he was not allowed to claim any compensation under Italian law for his detention pending trial on suspicion of abuse of power and corruption while working as a technical director, technical and economic advisor and special representative and agent of company X in 1991.   The Court held by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 5 (right to compensation). (Judgment in English)   (5)     Magyar v. Hungary (no. 32396/96)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Lajos Magyar, a Hungarian national born in 1937 and living in Budapest, complained that court proceedings concerning the expropriation of his house had been unreasonably long (more than eight years and still pending [2] ).   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded 1,000,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) for non-pecuniary damage and HUF 250,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in English)   (6)     Platakou v. Greece (no. 38460/97)   Violation Art. 6 § 1 and Art 1 of Prot. No. 1 Foula Platakou, a Greek national, complained, in relation to the expropriation of her property, that she was the victim of an error by the State, acting in a judicial capacity, in that her request for compensation was declared inadmissible because the official bailiff had not notified the State of her request within the legal time limit.   She further alleged that, had she benefited from the suspension of time limits during the judicial holidays, as did the State, her request would have been on time and, that this rule was discriminatory, as it was at odds with the principle of “equality of arms”.   In addition, she complained that no court examined the substance and merits of her complaint concerning the error in question and that she did not receive full and fair compensation as the amount she received corresponded only to a quarter of the value of her expropriated property.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, but that it was unnecessary to consider the applicant’s complaint raised under Article 14. She was awarded 90,000,000 drachmas (GRD) for pecuniary damage GRD 3,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and GRD 6,710,000 GRD for costs and expenses. (Judgment 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] From 5 November 1992, when Hungary recognised the right of individual petition.