CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 juillet 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 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sE69959AA { width:3.89pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sBD883C8E { width:3.91pt; display:inline-block } .s2CEA8CB3 { width:34.58pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     503   5.7.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Germany and Italy   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments (none of which is final [1] ):   Section 4   (1)     Erdem v. Germany (no. 38321/97)         Violation of Article 5 § 3,                   No violation of Article 8 On 7 April 1988, Selahattin Erdem, a Turkish national who had had refugee status in France since December 1987, was arrested on the German border on suspicion of being a member of a terrorist organisation (under Article 129a of the Criminal Code) and falsifying documents. He was placed in detention on remand the following day.   He was kept in detention prior to and during the trial of 18 Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) officials, including himself, (which lasted from 24 October 1989 until 7 March 1994) for, among other offences, 11 murders and six counts of unlawful deprivation of liberty. During his detention, the applicant’s correspondence with his lawyer was monitored.   On 7 March 1994 the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court ruled that the applicant - whose true name was not Selahattin Erdem, but Duran Kalkan - was one of the founders of the PKK and a former member of the PKK’s Executive Committee who had built up PKK units in Lebanon and Syria. He was found guilty of being a member of a terrorist organisation and sentenced to six years' imprisonment.   The applicant complained of the length of his detention (five years and 11 months), relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of the Convention. He further complained, relying on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence), about the interception of his correspondence with his lawyer.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that, in order to be compatible with the Convention, the very considerable length of the deprivation of liberty suffered by the applicant would have to have had the most convincing justifications. However, it considered that the grounds cited by the German courts in their decisions had not been sufficient to justify holding the applicant in detention pending trial for 5   years and 11 months. The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. In view of this finding, the Court considered it unnecessary to consider separately the complaint raised under Article 6 § 2.   Regard being had to the threat presented by terrorism in all its forms, to the safeguards attending the interception of correspondence in the instant case and to the margin of appreciation left to the State, the Court held that the interference complained of was not disproportionate in relation to the legitimate aims pursued. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 8.   The Court made no award for just satisfaction, as no demand had been submitted. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Section 2   (2)     Giannangeli v. Italy (no. 41094/98)               Violation Article 6 § 1 Rocco Sandro Giannangeli, an Italian applicant, complained about the length of criminal proceedings against him (which lasted five years, one month and 23 days) on charges of money laundering, forgery and fraud. He was acquitted.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded the applicant 13,000,000 Italian lire (ITL) for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 5,000,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (3)     P.G.F. v. Italy (no. 45269/99)                 Violation Article 6 § 1 Mr P.G.F., an Italian national, complained about the length of criminal proceedings against him, which lasted five years. He was ultimately discharged.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant ITL 14,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 1,413,720 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only 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.