CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 17 mai 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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF026B33E { width:34.09pt; display:inline-block } .sFDD07C1D { width:114.13pt; display:inline-block } .s31C42FAB { width:105.44pt; 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     361   17.5.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Greece, Luxembourg and Slovakia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments (only Remšíková v. Slovakia is final [1] ):   SECTION 2   (1)     Scheele v. Luxembourg (application no. 41761/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Werner Scheele, a German national living in Kayl, complained of the length of criminal proceedings in which he is a civil party lasting over four years and still pending before the investigating judge. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court rejected the applicant’s claim for compensation and awarded him 25,000 Luxembourg francs for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (2)     Stoidis v. Greece (no. 46407/99)   No violation Article 6 § 1 Nikolas Stoidis, a Greek national born in 1948 and living in Edessa complained about the length (six years, one month and 18 days) of civil proceedings he instituted   following his dismissal. The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (3)     Remšíková v. Slovakia (no. 46843/99)   Friendly settlement Monika Remšíková, a Slovakian national living in Ilava complained about the length of two sets of civil proceedings to which she was a party (pending since 2 September 1993 and 15 July 1997 respectively), relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 200,000 Slovak korunas is to be paid for any non-pecuniary or pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only 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.