CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 mars 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 } .sBF964C40 { width:8.54pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s39F3D38E { width:6.75pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s172596D7 { width:126.82pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s70AA3140 { width:328.89pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB6A12203 { width:335.57pt; display:inline-block } .sE9E4B253 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6BE18600 { width:100.75pt; display:inline-block } .s1D5CF4F6 { width:43.39pt; display:inline-block } .s8793E4F9 { width:24.75pt; display:inline-block } .s754C3D66 { width:28.02pt; display:inline-block } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; display:inline-block } .sAAA0B4EC { width:314.23pt; 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   142   1.3.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Greece, Hungary, Italy and Turkey     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 70 Chamber judgments: (only Dallos v. Hungary and the friendly settlements are final [1] ):   SECTION 2   (1)   Malama   v. Greece (no. 43622/98)           Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Eleni Malama, a Greek national, complained in relation to the expropriation of 942,250 square metres of land by the Greek State in 1923. The proceedings concerning compensation began in 1928 and continued until 1948, but without any final judgment. They were revived in 1963 by the applicant’s mother and aunt and ended with a judgment of the Court of Cassation on 18 June 1996. On 12 September 1997 the Athens Court of First Instance declared that the applicant was entitled to 3/8 of the compensation assessed by the Greek courts. However, the national authorities delayed in making payment. On 21 April 1999 the compensation, as assessed in old drachmas by a court of appeal in 1993, was paid in new drachmas into the applicant’s bank account.   The applicant complained about the national authorities’ refusal to comply with the judgments of the Greek courts fixing the compensation payable, the length of the proceedings and that the sum she received amounted only to 1.53% of the value of the expropriated land.   Considering that, from the time the expropriation took place, the Greek authorities took more than 75 years to fix the level of compensation and pay the applicant, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The Court also held, unanimously, that it was unnecessary to rule on the merits of the complaint raised under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, concerning the fairness of the proceedings, and that it could not rule on the merits of the claim raised under Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of the proceedings because the proceedings in question ended more than six months before Ms Malama made her application. The question of just satisfaction - Article 41 of the Convention - has been reserved for decision at a later date. (The judgment exists only in French.) (2)   Gelgeç and Özdemir v. Turkey (application no. 27700/95)   Friendly Settlement Elif Gelgeç and Izzet Özdemir, both Turkish nationals accused of being members of a terrorist organisation, complained, under Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), that they were tortured while being held in police custody and that their confession statements were drawn up by the police.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 7,500 pounds sterling is to be paid to each applicant for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   (3)     Dallos v. Hungary (no. 29082/95)   No violation Article 6 Zoltán Dallos, a Hungarian national born in 1949 and living in Vonyarcvashegy, alleged that criminal proceedings against him had been unfair, in that – since he had been prosecuted for, and at first instance convicted of, embezzlement   – the appeal court’s reclassification of the offence as fraud had prevented him from exercising his defence rights properly. He complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), as well as Article 6 § 3 (a) (right to be informed promptly of accusation) and (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence).   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the Supreme Court, which had the power to replace the applicant’s conviction with an acquittal, reviewed the case and that the applicant had the opportunity to defend himself before the Supreme Court in relation to the reformulated charge. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention. The judgment is available only in English.       Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicants in the following six Italian cases complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against them, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The European Court of Human Rights found unanimously in each case, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The amounts for non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses are listed below. All judgments are available only in French except for Visintin v. Italy which is only available in English.   (4)     Patané v. Italy (no. 29898/96) (at least six years, eleven months and seven days) 17,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 500,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (5)   Ciacci   v. Italy (no.38878/97) (started 30 June 1993 and still pending on 9 November 1999) 20,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 2,080,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (6)   Mangascia’ v. Italy (no.41206/98) (12 years and 20 days) 19,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage. (7)   Del Giudice   v. Italy (no. 42351/98) (six years and one month) 8,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 2,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (8)   Visintin v. Italy (no. 43199/98) (started on 20 March 1995 and still pending on 22 May 2000) 16,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 5,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (9) Orlandi   v. Italy (no. 44943/98) (seven years and six months) 18,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 2,080,000 ITL for costs and expenses.       Friendly Settlements The applicants in the following seven Italian cases, complained about their prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of their apartments and about the duration of the eviction proceedings [2] . They rely on Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Each case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the Government is to pay the applicants the sums indicated below for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. All judgments are available only in English.   (10)     Castiglioni and others v. Italy (no. 30877/96) - Seven years and five months to evict tenant 20,000,000 ITL (11)     Gimigliano v. Italy (no. 30918/96) - 10 years   26,000,000 ITL (12)     I.Fr. v. Italy (no. 31930/96) - From 31 December 1987 and still unresolved on 10 July 1999 33,000,000 ITL (13)     R.M. v. Italy (no.32403/96) - Five years and two months   20,000,000 ITL (14)   B.   v. Italy (no. 32465/96) - From 31 December 1987 and still unresolved on 23 July 1999 15,000,000 ITL (15)   Sborchia and Tognarini v. Italy (no. 33116/96) - Ten years   20,000,000 ITL (16)   Paris   v. Italy (no. 33602/96) - Eight years and two months.   60,000,000 ITL       Violation Article 6 § 1 In the following 53 Italian cases, the applicants complained, under Article 6 § 1, about the length of the civil proceedings to which they were parties.   The European Court of Human Rights found unanimously in each case (except Circo and others v. Italy, six votes to one, and Ciuffetti v. Italy, five votes to two), that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. In four cases ( Procaccianti   v. Italy, Falconi v. Italy, Francesca Mastrantonio and Martinetti and others v. Italy) it was not considered necessary to examine whether there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The amounts for non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses are listed below. All 53 judgments are available only in French.   (17) L.G.S. S.p.A. v. Italy (no. 2)   (no. 39487/98) (more than 12 years) 5,000,000 ITL for damages and 1,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (18) Pasquale De Simone   v. Italy (no. 42520/98) (started on 30 August 1997 and still pending on 1 March 2001)   6,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 2,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (19)   Marcolongo v. Italy (no. 46957/99) (started 15 February 1993 and still pending on 12 October 2000) 10,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage (20)   Ardemagni and Ripa v. Italy (no. 46958/99) (started 19 January 1995 and still pending on 1 March 2001) 10,000,000 ITL to the first applicant, 8,000,000 ITL to each of the other three applicants and 1,250,000 ITL to each applicant for costs and expenses. (21)   Circo and others v. Italy (no. 46959/99) (more than nine years for the male applicants and more than eight years for the female applicant) 7,000,000 ITL to the first three male applicants for non-pecuniary damage, 5,000,000 ITL to the female applicant and 1,250,000 ITL to each applicant for costs and expenses. (22)   Trimboli   v. Italy (no. 46960/99) (started 25 May 1996 and still pending on 1 March 2001) 13,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 5,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (23)   Maletti v. Italy (no. 46961/99) (started on 17 September 1992 and still pending on 26 October 2000) 18,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 473,100 ITL for costs and expenses. (24)   Lucas International S.r.l. v. Italy (no. 46962/99) (a little more than six years and seven months) 12,000,000 ITL for damages and 5,000,000 ITL for costs and ezpenses. (25)   Galiè v. Italy (no. 46963/99) (at least eight years) 15,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 5,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (26)   Alpites S.p.A. v. Italy (no. 46964/99) (started 26 January 1989 and still pending on 7 February 2001) 35,000,000 ITL for damages and 5,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (27)   Franceschetti and Odorico v. Italy (no. 46965/99) (started 23 October 1992 and still pending on 6 December 2000) to each applicant 20,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 2,500,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (28)   Massaro v. Italy (no. 46966/99) (started on 6 April 1993 and still pending on 29 September 2000) 15,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage. (29)   Procaccianti   v. Italy (no. 46967/99) (started on 7 April 1992, still pending 23 September 2000) 20,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 2,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses (30)   Falconi v. Italy (no. 46968/99) (started on 24 October 1989, still pending on 27 January 2000) 30,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 3,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (31)   Procopio v. Italy (no. 46969/99) (more than 16 years and six months) 60,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 3,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (32)   F.T. v. Italy (no. 46971/99) (approximately 13 years and three months for two instances) 20,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage. (33)   Morelli and Nerattini v. Italy (no. 46973/99) (approximately seven years and nine months) to each applicant 16,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 1,759,706 ITL for costs and expenses. (34)   Risola v. Italy (no. 46974/99) (approximately ten years and three months) 30,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 2,500,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (35)   Di Gabriele v. Italy (no. 46975/99) (started 4 July 1985 and still pending on 27 November 1999 for three instances) 25,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 4,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (36)   Di Motoli and others v. Italy (no. 46976/99) (a little more than five years and seven months) to each applicant 12,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 500,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (37)   Vaccarisi v. Italy (no. 46977/99) (a little more than four years and three months) the applicant made no claims for just satisfaction. (38)   F.P. v. Italy (no. 46978/99) (started 20 January 1992 and still pending on 11 December 2000 for two instances) 20,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 5,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (39)   Francesca Mastrantonio v. Italy (no. 46979/99) (approximately 18 years and 10 months) 50,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 3,625,444 ITL for costs and expenses. (40)   C.L. v. Italy (no. 46980/99) (a little more than nine years and seven months) 5,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 3,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses.         SECTION 4   (41)   Bonelli   v. Italy (no.44457/98) (more than seven years for two instances) 13,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 5,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (42)   Roberto Sacchi   v. Italy (no. 44461/98) (started 9 March 1994, still pending 11 December 2000) 12,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage (43)   Zanasi   v. Italy (no. 44462/98) (a little more than nine years and four months) 24,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 4,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (44)   Ada Maccari v. Italy (no. 44464/98) (more than four years and nine months) 12,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage. (45)   Rigutto   v. Italy (no. 44465/98) (more than six years and nine months) 12,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 4,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (46)   Valerio Santoro   v. Italy (no. 44466/98) (more than 12 years and two months) 20,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 3,799,540 ITL for costs and expenses. (47)   B.   v. Italy (no. 44468/98) (almost 11 years and three months) to each applicant 18,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 1,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (48)   Spada   v. Italy (no. 44470/98) (started on 26 June 1980 and still pending on 8 January 2001) 60,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 1,500,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (49)   Valeria Rossi   v. Italy (no. 44472/98) (started on 8 September 1993, still pending 1 March 2001) 16,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 5,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (50)   A.C.   v. Italy (no. 44481/98) (more than 15 years and eight months) to each of the applicant’s inheritors 22,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 2,500,000 ITL costs and expenses. (51)   Tebaldi   v. Italy (no. 44486/98) (started 10 October 1978 and still pending on 15 December 2000 for two sets of proceedings) 52,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage. (52)   Vecchi and others v. Italy (no. 44488/98) (more than 23 years and four months) to each applicant 80,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 1,500,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (53)   Murgia   v. Italy (no. 44490/98) (more than five years and eight months) 10,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage. (54)   Sonego v. Italy (no. 44491/98) (a little more than 23 years for three instances) 60,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage. (55)   O. P. v. Italy (no. 44494/98) (a little more than 19 years and three months for two instances) 52,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 4,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (56)   Cova v. Italy (no. 44500/98) (more than 11 years and 10 months) 32,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 4,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (57)   Citterio and Angiolillo   v. Italy (no. 44504/98) (almost six years and 11 months) to each applicant 12,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 2,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (58)   Shipcare S.r.l. v. Italy (no. 44505/98) (started 12 October 1987, still pending 1 March 2001) 32,000,000 ITL for damages and 4,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (59)   Bellagamba   v. Italy (no. 44511/98) (more than five years and three months) 8,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 3,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (60)   Mari and Mangini v. Italy (no. 44517/98) (started 20 May 1976, still pending 1 March 2001) to each applicant 41,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 1,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (61)   Rossana Ferrari   v. Italy (no. 44527/98) (more than eight years and 11 months) 15,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 4,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (62)   Vecchini v. Italy (no. 44528/98) (more than seven years and nine months) 16,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 4,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (63)Venturini   v. Italy (no. 44534/98) (started on 9 February 1990, still pending 10 February 2000) 28,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 1,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (64)   Ciuffetti v. Italy (no. 47779/98) (more than five years and five months) 4,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 2,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (65)   Santorum v. Italy (no. 47780/99) (started 22 April 1981, still pending 23 July 1999 for two instances) to each applicant 48,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 2,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (66)   Farinosi and Barattelli   v. Italy (no. 47781/99) (started 6 April 1988, still pending 2 October 2000) to each applicant 28,000,000 ITL non-pecuniary damage and 2,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses.   (67)   Martinetti and others v. Italy (no. 47784/99) (started 24 June 1987 and still pending on 22 February 2000) to each applicant 48,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 1,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (68)   Angemi v. Italy (no. 47785/99) (started on 24 February 1988, still pending 14 December 2000) 10,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 3,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses. (69)   G. V. v. Italy (no. 47786/99) (nearly ten years and seven months for two instances) 16,000,000 ITL for non-pecuniary damage and 4,000,000 ITL for costs and expenses.     No violation Article 6 § 1 (70)   Marcotrigiano (no.2) v. Italy (no. 47783/99) (a little more than five years and five months for two instances) The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 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.   [2] The dates given are calculated from the date of the expiry of each lease