CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 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 } .s75CC46D { width:21.85pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sD62A0CC7 { width:15.9pt; display:inline-block } .s404C6B31 { width:28.57pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s906CA806 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s5E15F1C8 { width:0.33pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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     154   6.3.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Sweden and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following Chamber judgments:   Section 1   (1)     Jakola v. Sweden (application no. 32531/96)                Friendly settlement   Aune Jakola, a Finnish national, complained that she was denied an oral hearing before the Swedish courts - in breach of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights   - concerning her request for industrial injury compensation. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 35,000 Swedish kronor is to be paid to the applicant. The judgment is available only in English.   Section 3   (2)     Zana v. Turkey [1] (no. 29851/96)                 Violation Article 6 § 1   Mehdi Zana, a Turkish national, alleged that he was denied a fair trial, on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court hearing his case. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant. (Judgment in English)   (3)     Çavuşoğlu v. Turkey (no. 32983/96)                   Friendly settlement   Özgür Çavuşoğlu, a Turkish national, complained, under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the Convention, that he was ill-treated in police custody. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 75,000 French francs is to be paid ex gratia to the applicant for any non-pecuniary or pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (Judgment in English)     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.