CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 juillet 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC77F425F { width:72.76pt; display:inline-block } .sC8D11E40 { width:68.8pt; display:inline-block } .sFA2D4C65 { width:118.12pt; display:inline-block } .sAE346682 { width:89.45pt; display:inline-block } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; display:inline-block } .s26A7C800 { width:135.48pt; display:inline-block } .s2474A0F5 { width:149.49pt; display:inline-block } .s33660E3E { width:133.47pt; display:inline-block } .sE66965E4 { width:345.57pt; display:inline-block } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; 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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS [Note1]     561   26.7.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING BULGARIA, CROATIA, ITALY AND POLAND   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments (none of which is final [1] except Ilijkov v. Bulgaria ):   SECTION 2   (1)     Martinez v. Italy (application no. 41893/98)     Violation Article 6 § 1 Michele Martinez, an Italian national born in 1931 and living in Rome, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), about the length of criminal proceedings against him, which lasted more than seven years and 11 months.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded the applicant 20,000,000 Italian lira (ITL) for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 5,000,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English)   (2)     F.R. and three others v. Italy (no. 45267/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicants, all Italian nationals, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of criminal proceedings against them, which lasted between three years, seven months and 15 days and more than four years and five months.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded each applicant ITL 13,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and an overall sum of ITL 3,886,475 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French)   SECTION 4   (3)     Jedamski v. Poland (no. 29691/96)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Grzegorz Jedamski, a Polish national, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time), about the length of two sets of civil proceedings. The first concerns a claim for payment and lasted a little more than eight years and one month (of which the Court could only take into consideration around seven years and nine months [2] ), and the second concerned a complaint against a bailiff and lasted three years and seven months.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in each set of proceedings and awarded the applicant 20,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English)   (4)     Ilijkov v. Bulgaria (no. 33977/96)   Violation Article 5 §§ 3 and 4   Violation Article 6 § 1 Petar Ilijkov, a Bulgarian national, who was arrested in October 1993 on charges of forgery and fraud, complained that his detention on remand had been unreasonably long and that, following his arrest, he had not been brought promptly before a judge or other officer exercising judicial power. He also complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against him, which had lasted more than five years and five months. He relied on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 and Article 6 § 1.   The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 and by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It awarded the applicant 6,000 Bulgarian levs (BGL) for non-pecuniary damage and BGL 10,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English)   (5)     Kreps v. Poland (no. 34097/96)   Violation Article 5 § 3   Violation Article 6 § 1 Zbigniew Kreps complained, relying on Article 5 § 3, that his detention pending trial had been excessively long, lasting approximately four years and three months, of which the Court could only take into consideration around four years. He further complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, that his right to a fair trial within a reasonable time was not respected as the proceedings lasted four years and nearly 11 months, of which the Court could only take into consideration four years and seven months.   The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant PLN 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage and PLN 8,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English)   (6)     Di Giovine v. Italy (no. 39920/98)   Violation Article 8 Emilio di Giovine, an Italian national, who is currently in prison for murder, attempted murder and illegal possession of firearms and who, on three occasions, successfully escaped from custody, complained about the control of his correspondence to his family and his lawyers, relying on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) of the Convention.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 but did not consider it necessary to apply Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in French)   (7)     Horvat v. Croatia (no. 51585/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Violation Article 13 Ankica Horvat, a Croatian national, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of civil proceedings concerning the re-payment of two loans, which lasted more than six years, of which the Court could only take into consideration three years and eight months [3] . She further complained that she had no effective remedy, relying on Article 13.   The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 and awarded the applicant 20,000 Croatian Kunas for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only 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] 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 period of time after Poland recognised the right of individual petition on 1 May 1993. 1 the period of time after Poland recognised the right of individual petition on 1 May 1993. [3] the period of time after Croatia recognised the right of individual petition on 5 November 1997. [Note1]   Press release for grouped judgments . To be save in t:\gen\press\Court\eng\Judgments\Grand Chamber or Chamber\ and named by month[s], [day] and language, with case names in brackets if specification necessary (e.g. Jan   13 Eng (Scozzari, Giunta, Rotaru) or Feb   4+11 Eng or Mar Eng).