CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 13 janvier 2004

.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 } .s1A32EE24 { width:80.77pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .s7B8DAD06 { width:163.47pt; display:inline-block } .sE1D80D2A { width:113.5pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     012   13.1.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1] (All four judgments are available only in English.)     Németh v. Hungary (application no. 60037/00)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, László Németh, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Baj, Hungary. In 1992, a criminal investigation was opened against him on charges of fraud, of which he was acquitted in 2000.   The applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, of the length of the criminal proceedings against him, which lasted seven years, four months and nine days.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 6,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage.     Haas v. Netherlands (no. 36983/97)                                  Articles 8, 13 and 14 not applicable The applicant, Pieter Jelle Haas, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1964 and lives in Hilversum (the Netherlands).   He complained that as an unrecognised “illegitimate” child, he was not able to inherit from his father. He relied on Articles 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 8 together (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court observed that the applicant was essentially complaining about the refusal of the courts to examine and recognise his claim to the estate of Mr   P. over that of Mr K. In reality, the courts were faced with a question of evidence going to the issue of whether family-law ties between the applicant and the deceased should be recognised.   The case did not concern Article 8 of the Convention, whether seen in terms of “family life” or “private life”. The applicant had never lived with Mr P. and any sporadic contact between them could not be construed as “family life.” Neither had the applicant intended to have his claim to be Mr P.’s son accepted in order to provide him with the emotional security of knowing that he was part of a family or to enable him to create ties with Mr   P.’s surviving family circle or to resolve any doubts he might have had about his own personal identity - he was convinced in his own mind that he was the unrecognised illegitimate son of Mr P.     The Court also noted that the applicant had the option of applying for a judicial declaration of paternity under Article 1:207 of the Civil Code.   The Court held unanimously that Articles 8, 14 and 13 were not applicable.   Grela v. Poland (no. 73003/01)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Genowfa Grela, is a Polish national who was born in 1936 and lives in Zamość, Poland.   She complained, under Article 6 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time), of the length of the proceedings to divide her deceased parents’ estate between her and her three brothers, which lasted nine years, seven months and two weeks. She also relied on Article 1 Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and considers that it is not necessary to examine whether there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 40 for costs and expenses.   Owens v. United Kingdom (no. 61036/00)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Geoffrey Owens, is a United Kingdom national, born in 1950 and living in Liverpool. He is a widower. His wife, whom he had married in 1977, died in 1997. They had two children, born in 1983 and 1989. The applicant’s wife had worked as a schoolteacher for approximately 21 years and paid full social security contributions.   Mr Owens applied for the Widowed Mother’s Allowance, to which a widow, whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of his wife, would have been entitled. He was informed that the benefit was payable only to widows.     He appealed unsuccessfully. A widow would also have received a Christmas bonus of 10 pounds sterling (GBP) for the year 2000.   He complained of discrimination on the grounds of sex relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which Mr Owens is to receive GBP 11,477.60 for any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses.   ***   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.