CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 6 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 } .s791BEC77 { width:94.1pt; display:inline-block } .s7E828C92 { width:210.83pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .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     002   6.1.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments, neither of which is final [1] . (These judgments are available only in French.)     Rouille v. France (application no. 50268/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Alain Rouille, is a French national who was born in 1957 and lives in Tregueux (France).   Following a complaint by his employer, Crédit Mutuel de Bretagne, the applicant was informed on 22 July 1994 that he was suspected of aggravated misappropriation, among other offences. On 29 June 2000 Saint-Brieuc Criminal Court found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   The Court considered that the proceedings in issue, which had lasted five years and eleven months for the investigation and one level of jurisdiction, had failed to satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement in Article 6 § 1. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of that provision and awarded Mr Rouille 4,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage.   Balıkçı v. Turkey (no. 26481/95)   Striking out The applicant, Hasan Balıkçı, was a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lived in Adana. He died in October 2002. His heirs were authorised by the Court to continue the proceedings.   Disciplinary proceedings were taken against Mr Balıkçı, a non-established employee of the Turkish Electricity Board ( Türk Elektrik Kurumu – “the TEK”), on account of his participation in a one-day stoppage of work called in an attempt to secure trade union rights. In October 1994 he received a reprimand but was amnestied in 1999 following the entry into force of the Civil and Public Servants’ Disciplinary Penalties (Amnesty) Act. He was subsequently promoted several times within the TEK.   The applicant complained of the prohibition barring him from exercising trade union rights on account of his non-established status. He alleged the violation of Articles 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy) that he had not had an effective remedy whereby he could have asserted his rights.   The Court noted that the provisions of the Constitution which formerly prevented established and non-established civil servants from exercising the right to take part in trade union activities had been amended so that the rights in question were now recognised. In addition, a law providing for an amnesty in respect of disciplinary penalties imposed on civil and public servants had come into force in 1999. In accordance with that law the applicant had been amnestied and the record of his reprimand had been removed from his administrative file. He had continued to work for the TEK, evidently without suffering prejudice on account of that penalty. Lastly, the Court observed that a law on trade unions for public service staff which had come into force in 2001 had amended Turkish legislation in such a way as to enable it to comply with the requirements of the Convention.   That being so, the Court held that the matter had been resolved within the meaning of Article   37 of the Convention. As there was no particular reason to consider that respect for human rights required it to continue its examination of the application, the Court decided unanimously to strike the case out of its list.   ***   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.