CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 31 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s33401DB6 { width:336.9pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF333AF68 { width:73.14pt; display:inline-block } .sFBED0738 { width:267.5pt; display:inline-block } .sFBD2982E { width:163.41pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD50A667C { width:146.81pt; display:inline-block } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; display:inline-block } .s8EDBD821 { width:88.09pt; display:inline-block } .sA7A4913B { width:290.18pt; display:inline-block } .sC8015E75 { width:78.08pt; display:inline-block } .sF309C982 { width:115.46pt; 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     391   31.5.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Finland, Germany, Italy and Turkey     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments ( Colangelo v. Italy, Castelli v. Italy and Kortak v. Turkey are final [1] ):     SECTION 2     Friendly settlements The applicants, both Italian nationals, in the following two 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. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which the following amounts, in Italian lire (ITL), are to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The first judgment is available only in English and the second, only in French.)   (1)     Colangelo v. Italy (no. 29671/96) almost eight years and nine months to evict the tenant [2]   ITL 29,215,285 (2)     Castelli v. Italy (no. 30920/96)   14 years, seven months and 21 days [3]   ITL 35,000,000     (3)     Kortak v. Turkey (no. 34499/97)   Friendly settlement Mehmet Ali Kortak, a Turkish national, complained under Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge), about the excessive length of his detention in police custody, without being brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 30,000 French francs is to be paid on an ex gratia basis for non-pecuniary or pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   SECTION 4   Violation Article 6 § 1 In the following two cases the applicants, both Finnish nationals, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, that they were denied a fair hearing due to the non-communication of opinions obtained ex officio in administrative proceedings.   In both cases, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicants the amounts listed below in Finnish marks (FIM). (Both judgments are available only in English.)   (4)   K.S. v. Finland (no. 29346/95)   FIM 5,000 non-pecuniary damage   FIM 1,000 costs and expenses   (5)     K.P. v. Finland (no. 31764/96)   FIM 15,000 non-pecuniary damage   (6)     Metzger v. Germany (no. 37591/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Günther Metzger, a German national living in Darmstadt, complained about the length of criminal proceedings (just over nine years) against him.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and awarded the applicant 10,000 Deutsch marks (DEM) for non-pecuniary damage and DEM 15,000 for 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 period of time is calculated from the date of the expiry of the lease [3] The period of time is calculated from the date notice to terminate the lease was served on the tenant