CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 juin 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s9865EB47 { width:324.24pt; display:inline-block } .sDB00410C { width:132.14pt; display:inline-block } .sC7A857D { width:137.48pt; 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 } .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     440   19.6.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING France and the United Kingdom     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments none of which are final [1] :     SECTION 3   (1)     S.B.C. v. the United Kingdom (application no. 39360/98) Violation Article 5 §§ 3 and 5   No violation Article 13 S.B.C. a British national, complained in relation to his automatic pre-trial detention, under Section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and the lack of availability of an enforceable right to compensation and of an effective remedy. He relied on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) §§ 3 and 5 and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 and no violation of Article 13 and that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant. It awarded him 5,000 pounds sterling for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (2)     Mahieu v. France (no. 43288/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Daniel Mahieu, a French and Belgian national complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of administrative proceedings concerning the use of his land, which lasted almost five years. He also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded him 30,000 French francs (FRF) for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 11,588 for costs and expenses. The Court also held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)     (3)     A.A.U. v. France (no. 44451/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 A.A.U. a French national, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of proceedings before military pension tribunals, which lasted 12 years, two months and six days.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded him FRF 50,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (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.