CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 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 } .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 } .s16704555 { width:22.74pt; display:inline-block } .s996A2209 { width:175.5pt; display:inline-block } .s75035AA8 { width:150.14pt; display:inline-block } .s8DB9D0E7 { width:52.13pt; display:inline-block } .s9B09180 { width:195.51pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE5E6DEB1 { width:143.51pt; 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 } .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   6   9.1.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Belgium, Italy, Poland and Sweden   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine Chamber judgments (only Kawka v. Poland and Natoli v. Italy final [1] ).   SECTION 1   (1)     Kawka v. Poland   (application no. 25874/94)   Violation Article 5 § § 1 and 4   Jacek Kawka, a Polish national living in Łódź, who was arrested on suspicion of attempted manslaughter, alleged that the Polish courts were arbitrary in their decisions relating to his detention on remand.   He complained that his detention had no legal basis as from 30 September 1994, when a decision prolonging his detention expired, because no judicial decision was taken to prolong it beyond that date. He remained in detention only on the basis of the assumption that his detention should be maintained because a bill of indictment had been lodged with the court. This assumption, according to the applicant, lacked any legal basis under domestic law. He also complained that the proceedings reviewing the lawfulness of his detention were not adversarial, in that he had never been brought before a court and that neither he nor his lawyer had been entitled to attend the court sessions dealing with the lawfulness of his detention.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (right to liberty and security) and 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded the applicant 4,000 Polish zlotys for non-pecuniary damage. The judgment is available only in English.   (2)     Natoli v. Italy (no. 26161/95)   Violation Article 8   Vincenzo Natoli, an Italian national, complained, among other things, about the control of his correspondence while he was serving life imprisonment for murder, abduction, unlawful entry and drug trafficking. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and held that a finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. The Court also awarded the applicant 4,000,000 Italian lire (ITL) for pecuniary damage minus 6,100 French francs (FRF) already given in costs and expenses by the Court. (Judgment in French).   (3)     Beck v. Sweden (no. 26978/95)   Friendly settlement   Bror Beck, a Swedish national living in Rätan, complained under Article 6 of the Convention (right to have civil rights determined within a reasonable time) about the length of civil proceedings (six years and three months) concerning his request for compensation for an occupational injury he allegedly suffered while he was working as a sailor in the 1950s.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 20,000 Swedish kroner (SEK) is to be paid to the applicant. (Judgment in English)   (4)     Muonio Saami Village v. Sweden (no. 28222/95)   Friendly settlement   The applicant Saami village in Muonio disagreed with a decision concerning the granting of   reindeer herding permits in the village for the year 1992, complaining that three of the permits had been granted to people who were not members of the village and that the permit holders were obliged to jointly herd 1,600 reindeer belonging to others. The village complained, under Article 6, that its rights concerning reindeer herding were not determined by an independent tribunal.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which SEK 65,000 is to be paid to the village. (Judgment in English)   (5)     Salvatore v. Italy (no. 37827/97)   Struck out   Fortunato Salvatore, an Italian national, complained about the length of civil proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted 15 years and six months.   The European Court of Human Rights has struck out the case on the ground that the applicant could not be considered a victim, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, as he did not intervene in or demonstrate sufficient interest in the proceedings in question. (Judgment in French)   Each of the following length-of-civil-proceedings cases, all concerning Italian applicants, were struck out following a friendly settlement. (All Judgments in French)   (6)     Centioni and six others   v. Italy (no. 41807/98) (8 years one month) ITL 8,000,000 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage and ITL 140,000 for costs and expenses.     (7)     Piccirillo v. Italy (no. 41812/98) (started July 1991 and still pending on 27 January 2000) ITL 14,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 3,000,000 for costs and expenses.   (8)     Musiani   v. Italy (no. 41813/98) (started June 1993 and still pending on 26 January 1999) ITL 10,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 5,000,000 for costs and expenses. SECTION 3   (9)     Sahli v. Belgium (no. 38707/97)   Friendly settlement   Mohamed Sahli, an Algerian national who is certified as having a psychiatric disorder, complained about being deported from Belgium, where he had lived most of his life. He complained under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) that he would not have the medical care he needed in Algeria and, under Article 8 (right to respect for family life), that he would be unable to live alone without the care he needed from his family, especially in a foreign country.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the Belgian Government has withdrawn the expulsion order and given the applicant a renewable foreign identity card initially valid for five years.     ***   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.