CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 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 } .s8A8254FF { width:59.44pt; display:inline-block } .sCCA78367 { width:85.48pt; display:inline-block } .sA6AFC9C8 { width:78.16pt; 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     481   28.6.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Portugal and Switzerland     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] :   SECTION 2   (1)     F.R. v. Switzerland (application no. 37292/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1 F.R., a Swiss national born in 1941 and living in Gersau complained, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that in a judgment of the Federal Insurance Court a statement of his had not been considered and that both he and certain witnesses had not been properly heard.   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 Convention 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 3,103.95 Swiss francs for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   SECTION 4   (2)     Maillard Bous v. Portugal (no. 41288/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Anne-Marie Maillard Bous, a French national born in 1938 and living in Saint-Aubin-le-Cauf (France) complained about the length of civil proceedings (11 years and seven months and still pending) concerning a breach of contract in relation to the sale of shares, relying on Article 6 § 1.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 1,500,000 Portuguese escudos (PTE) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)       (3)     Bento da Mota v. Portugal (no. 42636/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Fernando Eduardo Bento da Mota, a Portuguese national born in 1949 and living in Malveira complained about the length of civil proceedings (eight years and seven months) brought with two others concerning damages to an apartment building allegedly caused by the construction of an adjacent building. Article 6 § 1.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant PTE 900,000 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.