CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 octobre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBB98EE3D { width:131.47pt; display:inline-block } .sAFDA7BD3 { width:68.15pt; display:inline-block } .s26D56545 { width:100.8pt; display:inline-block } .sBF44568B { width:168.15pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     721   11.10.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Germany and Spain   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments (none of which is final [1] ):   SECTION 4   (1)     H. T. v. Germany (no. 38073/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1 H.T., a German national born in 1938 and living in Mettmann, brought proceedings challenging the constitutionality of a new law affecting her pension. She complained about the length of the proceedings, which lasted nearly 12 years.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded her 10,000 German marks (DEM) for non-pecuniary damage and DEM 670 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (2)     Rodríguez Valín v. Spain (no. 47792/99)   No violation Article 6 § 1 Alejandro Rodríguez Valín, a Spanish national born in 1972 and living in Corunna complained of a violation of his right of access to a court, in that his appeal to the Constitutional Court was rejected as being out of time, even though he had sent it by post within the 20-day time limit required. He further complained, relying on Article 14, of discrimination, in that he lives in Corunna and had to send his appeal to Madrid.   Noting that the applicant had sent his letter on the last day of the 20-day limit, the Court considered that he must have been aware that it was physically impossible for his letter to reach Madrid in time. The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to court) of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (3)     Diaz Aparicio v. Spain (no. 49468/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Francisco Diaz Aparicio, a lawyer and Spanish national born in 1964 and living in Madrid, complained about the length of the proceedings, particularly before the Constitutional Court, concerning his claim to be paid certain legal fees. Overall the proceedings lasted five years, two months and five days. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 500,000 Spanish pesetas (ESP) for non-pecuniary damage and ESP 300,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (4)     Kalantari v. Germany (no. 51342/99)   Struck out In October 1997, Ali Reza Kalantari, an Iranian national born in 1971, entered Germany from Iran and applied for political asylum. He claimed that one of his sisters had been executed in Iran and another had disappeared and that he had taken part in anti-government activities and had decided to leave Iran after hearing that his home had been searched. On 31 August 1998 his application was rejected, as were his appeals against the decision. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) he alleged, in particular, that his expulsion to Iran would put him at risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment.   Noting that it had been informed on 18 June 2001 by the German Government that the applicant was no longer to be deported (the decision of 31 August 1998 having been annulled), the Court decided, unanimously, to strike out the case. The applicant is to be paid DEM 16,000 less 355 euros for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   ***   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: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (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.