CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 21 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sA442093A { width:34.78pt; display:inline-block } .s43D33B2F { width:21.24pt; display:inline-block } .sAEB48DD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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]     517   21.10.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic and Poland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments, of which only Credit and Industrial Bank v. the Czech Republic is final. [1] [Note2]   Violation Article 6 Credit and Industrial Bank v. the Czech Republic (application no. 29010/95)     The applicant company, the Credit and Industrial Bank, is based in Prague. The Czech National Bank decided to place the applicant bank in compulsory administration from 30   September 1993 to 31 March 1994 on the grounds that its financial situation and liquidity remained unsatisfactory despite measures which had been taken to resolve the situation.   The Credit and Industrial Bank complained that it had no remedy concerning the decision to place it in compulsory administration or concerning subsequent administrative and judicial decisions. It relied on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights found that the Credit and Industrial Bank did not have effective access to a court with the power to review the decisions taken concerning its compulsory administration. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6, but that it was unnecessary to consider the applicant company’s complaint raised under Article 1 of   Protocol No. 1. The Court further held, unanimously, that a finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage and awarded 10,000 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Cegielski v. Poland (no. 71893/01))                                                        Violation Article 6 § 1 Violation Article 13 The applicant, Tadeusz Cegielski, is a Polish national, born in 1933 and living in Bielsko-Biała, Poland. In 1993 Szczecin Regional Court annulled the decision given in 1947 by   Szczecin Military Court which had convicted the applicant’s father and had sentenced him to imprisonment and the forfeiture of his property (an estate and farm machinery).   On 20 July 1995 the applicant brought civil proceedings seeking compensation for the forfeited property. Part of the proceedings are still pending.   The applicant complained that he had no domestic remedy to complain about the excessive length of the proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Finding that the length of the proceedings (over eight years and two months) exceeded a reasonable time, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court further held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13, in that the applicant had no remedy available enabling him to enforce his right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 8,000 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 . [Note2]   If you keep this sentence, do not forget to remove the corresponding sentence for each individual case.