CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 17 juillet 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s74FC7C52 { width:239.57pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s5C60AA6A { width:53.49pt; display:inline-block } .s78126BB0 { width:84.83pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS [Note1]     394   17.7.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Italy and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments, none of which is final. [1]   Article 6 § 1           Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Length of eviction proceedings     Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses (1)     Del Sole v. Italy (application no. 36254/97) EUR 6,000 EUR 4,000 (2)     D’Ottavi v. Italy (no. 33113/96) EUR 3,000 EUR 2,000 (3)     Ricci v. Italy (no. 32385/96) EUR 5,000 EUR 4,000 (4)     Rosati v. Italy (no. 55725/00) EUR 6,000 EUR 1,500 (5)     Traino v. Italy (no. 33692/96) EUR 5,000 EUR 3,500   The applicants in the above five Italian 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 fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   In each case the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicants the amounts indicated in euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   (6)     Mellors v. the United Kingdom (no. 57836/00)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Length of criminal proceedings   The applicant, Spencer James Mellors, is a UK national, born in 1964. He is currently in HM Prison Craiginches in Aberdeen (Scotland). On 30 October 1995 he was arrested and interviewed in connection with an incident of rape and assault which had occurred the previous day. On 2 July 1996 he was convicted on both charges and sentenced to nine years and nine months’ imprisonment. He lodged an intention to appeal on 8 July 1996 and his appeal was heard on 24 June 1999. It was dismissed on 22 July 1999.   Mr Mellors complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention, that the trial and appeal proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time.   The Court observed that the applicant was convicted just over eight months after his arrest, which did not amount to a delay. The appeal proceedings had lasted just over three years, however, and had not in the circumstances satisfied the reasonable time requirement. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR   2,800 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,800 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (7)     Perry v. the United Kingdom (no. 63737/00)   Violation Article 8   Videotaping for identification purposes   The applicant, Stephen Arthur Perry, is a UK national, born in 1964 and currently detained in HM Prison Brixton. He was arrested on 17 April 1997 in connection with a series of armed robberies of mini-cab drivers in and around Wolverhampton and released pending an identification parade. When he failed to attend that and several further identification parades, the police requested permission to video him covertly.   On 19 November 1997 he was taken to the police station to attend an identity parade, which he refused to do. Meanwhile, on his arrival, he was filmed by the custody suite camera. An engineer had adjusted it to ensure that it took clear pictures during his visit. The pictures were inserted in a montage of film of other persons and shown to witnesses. Two witnesses of the armed robberies subsequently identified him from the compilation tape. Neither Mr Perry nor his solicitor was informed that a tape had been made or used for identification purposes. He was convicted of robbery on 17 March 1999 and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. His subsequent appeals were unsuccessful.   Mr Perry complained, under Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the Convention, that the police had covertly videotaped him for identification purposes and used the videotape in the prosecution against him.   The Court noted that there was no indication that Mr Perry had had any expectation that footage would be taken of him in the police station for use in a video identification procedure and, potentially, as evidence prejudicial to his defence at trial. That ploy adopted by the police had gone beyond the normal use of this type of camera and amounted to an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life. The interference had not been in accordance with the law because the police had failed to comply with the procedures set out in the applicable code: they had not obtained the applicant’s consent or informed him that the tape was being made; neither had they informed him of his rights in that respect. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR   1,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   9,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   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)   Joanna Reynell (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. [Note1]   Press release for grouped judgments . To be saved in PowerDocs as follows: (1) Document Name: [case name +] [day +] month[s] + year + language [+ case names] (e.g. January 2003E (Bloggs, Durand + Dupont) or 12-14 February 2003E (Finland + France) or Reina 31012003E ), (2)   Document type: PR, (3) Group: PRESS, (4) Subject: JCH or JGC .