CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 29 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 } .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 } .s7C610E5B { width:2.58pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s64B1589E { width:19.33pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s71612392 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; background-color:#ffffff } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E8AFDBA { width:16.57pt; display:inline-block } .sC361C2D4 { width:13.2pt; display:inline-block } .s2D4036AF { width:12.58pt; display:inline-block } .s5903EA2C { width:32.55pt; display:inline-block } .sE846B0E1 { width:32.58pt; 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   218   29.3.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Switzerland, Italy, and Greece   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing one Grand Chamber and five Chamber judgments (only the Grand Chamber judgment and friendly settlements are final [1] ):   Grand Chamber   (1)     D.N. v. Switzerland (no. 27154/95)                   Violation Article 5 § 4 The applicant, D.N., is a Swiss national born in 1964 who was confined in a psychiatric clinic three times in 1994. In December 1994, she appealed unsuccessfully to the St. Gall Canton Administrative Appeals Commission to be released.   She complained that R.W., appointed as the judge rapporteur in her case, was not impartial because, prior to being appointed, he had already expressed his view that she should not be released.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that, when the applicant attended the hearing before the Administrative Appeals Commission on 28 December 1994, R.W. had already twice concluded that he would propose that her request be dismissed. In the Court’s opinion, this situation raised legitimate fears in the applicant that R. W. was not approaching her case with due impartiality.     G iven R.W.’s position as the sole psychiatric expert among the judges and the only person who had interviewed her, the applicant could legitimately fear that R.W.’s opinion carried particular weight. In the Court’s view, these circumstances taken as a whole served objectively to justify the applicant’s apprehension that R.W., sitting as a judge in the Administrative Appeals Commission, lacked the necessary impartiality.   The Court held, by 12 votes to five [2] , that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded the applicant 3,000 Swiss francs (CHF) for non-pecuniary damage and CHF 3,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available in English and French).   Section 2   (2)     Germano v. Italy (no. 31379/96)                   Friendly settlement Giancarlo Germano, an Italian national, complained about his prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of his apartment and about the duration (over eight years) of the eviction proceedings [3] . He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to be paid 40,000,000 Italian lire (ITL) for any non-pecuniary or pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (3)     Haralambidis v. Greece (no. 36706/97)               Not examined on the merits The first applicant - Ioannis Haralambidis, a Greek national - used to be president of the board of directors and managing director of the first applicant company - Yeoryios Haralambidis-Liberpa S.A., Greek Corporation of International Transports and General Enterprises S.A. (ανώνυμος εταιρία) - and manager of the second applicant company - Liberpa International Road Transports   Ltd (εταιρία περιορισμένης ευθύνης).   The case concerned criminal proceedings instituted against Mr Haralambidis for contraband and other related offences. Although he was acquitted, the customs authorities imposed a fine on the companies, which the administrative courts upheld. The applicants, the director and the two companies, complained that the administrative courts ignored the director’s previous acquittal. They also complained about the fines, the length of the proceedings and the failure of the customs authorities to disclose certain evidence. They relied on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 3 b) (right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence), Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Finding that the application was lodged on 5 June 1997, more than six months after the signing of the last relevant judgment by the Greek courts (1 July 1996), the Court held, unanimously, that it could not examine the merits of the case because the application was lodged out of time. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (4)     Zohiou v. Greece (no. 40428/98)                   Friendly settlement Stamatella Zohiou, a Greek national, complained, under Article 6 § 1, about the length of the civil proceedings to which she was a party, concerning the division of matrimonial property (lasting 13 years and 10 months). The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to be paid 4,250,000 Greek drachmas (GRD) for any non-pecuniary or pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (5) Kosmopolis S.A. v. Greece (no. 40434/98)             Violation Article 6 § 1 Kosmopolis S.A., the applicant company, complained of the length of civil proceedings (which lasted nine years and ten months) to which it was a party. The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the company GRD 2,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and GRD 2,000,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (6) Rocchi v. Italy (no. 44375/98)                    Friendly settlement Roberto Rocchi, an Italian national, complained, under Article 6 § 1, of the length of civil proceedings (started by his mother in October 1988 and still pending) to obtain compensation for the death of his father, following a judgment of May 1986 recognising that his father had died of an illness contracted during the war. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to be paid ITL 18,000,000 for any non-pecuniary or pecuniary damage, 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. [2] The judges, Luzius Wildhaber, Riza Türmen, Volodymyr Butkevych, András Baka and Snejana Botoucharova, elected in respect of Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Hungary and Bulgaria respectively, expressed a joint dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   [3] The dates given are calculated from the date of the expiry of each lease.