CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 février 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sB220F3F2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sD3427EA2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s105C94DE { width:35.33pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3FAF973C { width:22pt; display:inline-block } .sF890F575 { width:18.65pt; display:inline-block } .s2E58A8BD { width:27.42pt; display:inline-block } .sFD65D78B { width:29.86pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .s8242CF8E { width:39.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS       98   8.2.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING AUSTRIA, ITALY AND SAN MARINO   The following 22 chamber judgments have been notified in writing on 8 February 2000 by the European Court of Human Rights. Cooke v. Austria and Prinz v. Austria are final judgments [1] .   Section 3   1)& 2)   Cooke v. Austria   and Prinz v. Austria   In both cases the applicants complained that they were not present at their hearings before the Supreme Court concerning their pleas of nullity and their appeals.   In the first case, which concerns Michael Cooke , a British national born in 1935 and in prison in Garsten, Austria, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 taken in conjunction with 6 § 3 (c) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights as regards the failure to ensure the applicant’s presence at the hearing of the appeals in the Supreme Court. The case concerns criminal proceedings against Mr Cooke following which he was convicted of the murder of Ms. W, with whom he had gone on holiday to Austria. He was awarded 1,000 pounds sterling for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.   In the second case, which concerns Josef Prinz, an Austrian national born in 1945 and detained in Göllersdorf, Austria, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention. The case concerns criminal proceedings on charges of intimidation, in which the courts found that the applicant was not criminally responsible but that the conditions for his placement in an institution for mentally ill offenders were met. The Court found there were no special reasons warranting the applicant’s personal appearance at the hearing in the Supreme Court, as his interests were safeguarded by his legal representative.     Section 2   3)   Stefanelli v. San Marino   In the case of Sylviane Stefanelli, a San Marino national born in 1950 and living in San Marino, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in view of the absence of public hearing in her case. She was imprisoned for unlawful marketing of milk destined for animal breeding.   4)   19 length of proceedings cases in respect of Italy   The Court has found violations of Article 6 § 1 in the following 19 cases concerning Italy. The length of the proceedings in each case is indicated.   Section 1 Capoccia v. Italy (application number 41802/98) - 11 years and four months. Pupillo v. Italy (Nº 41803/98) - 11 years and ten months. Zeoli v. Italy (Nº 41814/98) - five years three months to six years and two months. Monti v. Italy (Nº 41815/98) - 15 years and nine months. Bonetti v. Italy (Nº 41809/98) - six years and two months. Mosca v. Italy (Nº 41810/98) - six years and two months.   Section 2   Delicata v. Italy (Nº 41821/98) -   over 14 years and eight months. Scuderi v. Italy (Nº 41822/98) -   over 16 years and three months. Parisse v. Italy (Nº 41825/98) - over 15 years and four months Ghezzi v. Italy (Nº 41826/98) - over 28 years and five months. Berrettari and Others v. Italy (Nº 41827/98) - approximately 19 years. Campomizzi v. Italy (Nº 41829/98) - over 15 years and two months. Raglione v. Italy (Nº 41830/98) - over 16 years and seven months. Pio v. Italy (Nº 41831/98) - over 27 years and nine months.   Section 4 Paradiso v. Italy (Nº 41816/98) - 13 years and three months. Caliri v. Italy (Nº 41817/98) - six years and ten months. Quinci v. Italy (Nº 41819/98) - 25 years and 11 months. Chierici v. Italy (Nº 41835/98) - more than 20 years and two months. Trotta v. Italy (Nº 41837/98) - 16 years and 4 months.   ***   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) or   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 1959 in Strasbourg 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.