CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 14 octobre 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sACFD2DAF { width:67.41pt; display:inline-block } .sAEB48DD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s7F2B891E { width:167.46pt; display:inline-block } .sE66965E4 { width:345.57pt; display:inline-block } .s1B8ACA20 { width:148.1pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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]     495   14.10.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France and Slovakia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three   Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   Lilly France v. France (application no. 53892/00)   Violation Article 6 § 1   The applicant, Lilly France, is a French public limited company based in Suresnes which manufactures and sells pharmaceuticals.   In March 1996 the Competition Council fined the applicant company 30,000,000 French francs (more than 4,500,000 euros) for abuse of a dominant position and ordered it to pay the costs of publishing the decision in two medical journals. The applicant company had been accused of attempting to preserve its market share for a product whose patent had entered the public domain by offering the product at a reduced price subject to the simultaneous purchase of another of its products.   The Paris Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant company in respect of the fine but overturned the order for publication of the decision. In a judgment of 19 June 1999 the Court of Cassation dismissed a subsequent appeal on points of law by the applicant company.   The applicant company complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights that it had not received a copy of the report submitted by the reporting judge to the Court of Cassation, whereas the advocate-general had.   Referring to its case-law, the European Court of Human Rights reiterated that the first part of the reporting judge’s report, containing a description of the facts, procedure and grounds of appeal, was not covered by the principle of the secrecy of deliberations and should, where appropriate, be communicated to the parties and the advocate-general on equal terms. Accordingly, the Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant company 6,434.87 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Číž v. Slovakia (no. 66142/01)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Violation Article 13   The applicant, Jozef Číž, is a Slovakian national, born in 1954 and living in Žiar nad Hronom (Slovakia).   On 29 October 1996 a private TV company broadcast a statement by a Member of Parliament in which the applicant - a police investigator - was accused of covering up crime. Mr Číž   brought defamation proceedings against the MP on 29 November 1996 and against the TV company on 13 December 1996. Both sets of proceedings were discontinued, on 12 March 2001, on the request of the applicant, who had lost confidence in the proper administration of justice given the length of the proceedings, which had, by then, taken more than four years.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention, the applicant complained of the length of proceedings. He further complained that he had no effective remedy concerning the excessive length of the proceedings, relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 in relation to both sets of proceedings and awarded the applicant EUR 2,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English)   Tkáčik v. Slovakia (no. 42472/98)   Violation Article 5 § 1   The applicant, Ondrej Tkáčik, is a Slovakian national, born in 1954. At the relevant time he lived in Košice (Slovakia). He now lives in Spain.   In the morning of 30 November 1996 Mr Tkáčik’s wife warned the police by telephone that he intended to drive after drinking alcohol, that he carried a weapon, that his behaviour was strange and that it was possible that he could endanger other people. The police stopped the applicant in his car. A   sword was taken from him and an analysis of his breath indicated that he had alcohol in his blood. He was brought to a police station and subsequently to a psychiatrist. After a   short examination, he was released. Later that day a doctor issued a certificate, at the request of Mr Tkáčik’s wife, asking for police assistance to take him to a mental hospital. Mr Tkáčik was later taken, against his will, to a mental hospital, where he was given medical drugs and made to undergo psychiatric tests.   On 2 December 1996 the hospital informed Košice II District Court about Mr Tkáčik’s detention and, on 9 December, the court found his detention to be lawful.     On 10 December 1996 Mr Tkáčik was released. On 25 September 1998 the applicant’s appeal concerning his detention was dismissed by Košice Regional Court   The applicant complained that his placement in a mental hospital breached Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and, under Article 8 (right to respect for private life), that his detention had unlawfully restricted his right to respect for his private life.   The Court found that legal time limits under Slovakian law were not respected concerning the applicant’s detention; the district court was not informed of his detention within 24 hours and the court did not decide on the lawfulness of the detention and inform Mr Tkáčik within five days of his placement in the hospital.   The Court, therefore, held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 and – having found the applicant’s detention unlawful – that it was not necessary to examine his complaint under Article 8. Mr Tkáčik was awarded EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (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 Press 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 by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site.   [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 .