CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 27 février 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s6D70EBE { width:150.87pt; display:inline-block } .s909264D0 { width:192.14pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2DED9654 { width:26.12pt; display:inline-block } .sD4372097 { width:8.77pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     114   27.2.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Germany, Italy and Portugal   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]   Section 1         Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 (1)     G. and M. v. Italy (application no. 31740/96)   A.G. and G.M., both Italian nationals, complained about their prolonged inability – through lack of police assistance – to recover possession of their apartment and about the duration of the eviction proceedings. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded each of the applicants 6,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Section 3   (2)     Textile Traders, Limited v. Portugal (no. 52657/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant is a company incorporated under English law whose registered office is in London.   The applicant company lodged a criminal complaint against a person who had tendered a cheque that was subsequently dishonoured. On 12 June 1995 it submitted a claim for damages against the defendant. On 25 March 1999 the investigating judge discontinued the proceedings, which had become subject to limitation. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant company complained of the length of the criminal proceedings (three years and nine months). The Court considered that in the present case the length of the proceedings had been unreasonable and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. By way of just satisfaction, it awarded the applicant company EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,250 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.) (3)     Axen, Teubner and Jossifov v. Germany (no. 54999/00)   Friendly settlement Sonja Axen, Katrin Teubner and Sophia Jossifov are German nationals who were born in 1925, 1950 and 1953 respectively and live in Berlin. Mrs Axen is the widow of Herman Axen, who died on 15 February 1992. Mr Axen was a member of the Political Bureau ( Politbüro ) of the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party ( Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands – SED ) of the German Democratic Republic (GDR). The other two applicants are the daughters of Mr and Mrs Axen.   During the transition period after the fall of the Berlin Wall but before German reunification Mr Axen requested the conversion of money in his bank account, amounting to about 250,000 GDR Marks, into Deutschmarks (DEM) of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). The money came from ordinary income ( reguläres Einkommen ).   On 27 September 1990 the select committee ( Sonderausschuss ) of the GDR parliament ( Volkskammer ) with responsibility for such matters ordered the confiscation ( Einziehung ) of the money in Mr Axen’s bank account on the ground that he had “acquired personal advantages for himself and for others to the detriment of society and at the expense of the national budget and other public funds through the abuse of his functions, through the enjoyment of privileges that he had granted himself and through acts constituting a flagrant breach of moral standards.” The select committee relied on section 5(2) of the GDR’s Act of 29 June 1990 on proof of the lawful provenance of convertible funds ( Gesetz über den Nachweis der Rechtmässigkeit des Erwerbs von Umstellungsguthaben ), also known as the Convertible Funds Act ( Umstellungsguthabengesetz ).   On 19 October 1990 Mr and Mrs Axen applied to the Berlin Administrative Court ( Verwaltungsgericht ). Their application was refused in a judgment of 24 May 1993 on the ground that the money came from savings acquired through abuse of official authority contrary to the public interest ( Gemeinwohl ). On 1 July 1997 the Berlin Administrative Court of Appeal ( Oberverwaltungsgericht ) set aside the first-instance decision and ordered that Mr Axen’s account be unfrozen, holding that section 5(2) of the Convertible Funds Act did not apply to savings deriving from ordinary income.   On 5 June 1998 the Federal Administrative Court ( Bundesverwaltungsgericht ) upheld an appeal on points of law by the State and quashed the judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal. In a judgment of 28 July 1999 the Federal Constitutional Court ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) refused to allow an appeal by the applicants.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants complained of the length of the proceedings in which they were parties.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicants are to receive EUR 3,000 for any damage sustained and for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of 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: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (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.