CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 décembre 2000

.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 } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sDDC1514B { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sBC996004 { width:22.2pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s8D1ED9D2 { width:8.49pt; display:inline-block } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sFB4C994A { width:32.54pt; display:inline-block } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s906CA806 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s5E15F1C8 { width:0.33pt; 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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   877   7.12.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING FINLAND AND THE NETHERLANDS     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments:   (1)     Valle v. Finland [1] (no. 28808/95)                      Friendly settlement Tapio Valle, a Finnish national, complained in relation to his compulsory psychiatric care, that the restrictions on him relating both to visits and telephone calls were unlawful and that he had not had an effective remedy against measures to restrict telephone calls from his lawyer. He invoked Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 20,000 Finnish marks (FIM) is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage and FIM 7,930 for costs and expenses. The judgment is available only in English.   (2)     Zoon v. the Netherlands (no. 29202/95)     No violation Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) Herman Olivier Zoon, a Netherlands national, complained that, when he had to decide whether or not to lodge an appeal, he did not have access to a written copy of the fully reasoned first-instance court judgment against him. He was charged with murder, falsification of a death certificate and prescriptions and forgery following his statement that he had performed euthanasia on, and at the request of, one of his patients. After having found that the applicant could have had access to a judgment in abridged form, th e European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair and public hearing) and 3 (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence) of the Convention. The judgment is available only in English.   ***   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.