CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 avril 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sFF91B740 { width:19.25pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sD0DE5315 { width:27.91pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA0390550 { width:31.21pt; display:inline-block } .s64913005 { width:35.19pt; display:inline-block } .sF9653556 { width:7.88pt; display:inline-block } .sD7BD576E { width:24.57pt; display:inline-block } .s7A925989 { width:27.24pt; display:inline-block } .s6D6D4050 { width:15.16pt; display:inline-block } .s10C707DC { width:13.25pt; display:inline-block } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .s54C33FD7 { width:15.88pt; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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   269   12.4.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Italy, Turkey, Slovakia, Greece and Portugal   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 12 Chamber judgments (only the friendly settlements are final [1] )   Section 2   (1)     S.A. and D.D.L. v. Italy (no. 30973/96)                   Friendly settlement S.A and D.D.L., both Italian nationals, complained about their prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of their apartment and about the duration of the eviction proceedings [2] (started on 18 May 1990 and still ongoing). They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case has been struck out, following a friendly settlement in which 7,000,000 Italian lire (ITL) is to be paid to each applicant for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (2)     Akın v. Turkey (no. 34688/97)                    Friendly settlement Abdullah Akın, a Turkish national and provincial president of the Hadep political party in Diyarbakır, complained in relation to the length of his detention in police custody relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which he is to be paid 30,000 French francs on an ex gratia basis for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (3)     Stančiak v. Slovakia (no. 40345/98)               Violation Article 6 § 1 Dušan Stančiak, a Slovak national, complained, in particular, about the length of the civil proceedings to which he was a party, concerning the separation of marital property (which lasted more than seven years and four months). The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) and awarded him 80,000 Slovak korunas for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.) (4)     Arvelakis v. Greece (no. 41354/98)              Violation Article 6 § 1 Yeoryios Arvelakis, a Greek national, complained of the length of criminal proceedings against him (lasting more than nine years and seven months). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and awarded him 2,000,000 drachmas (GRD) for non-pecuniary damage and GRD 1,000,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (5)     Messochoritis v. Greece (no. 41867/98)         Violation Article 6 § 1 Athanassios Messochoritis, a Greek national, complained of the length of administrative proceedings (12 years, eight months and five days) to which he was party. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded him GRD 1,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage, GRD 1,000,000 for pecuniary damage and GRD 1,000,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (6)     Di Deco v. Italy (no. 44362/98)                     Friendly settlement Pietro di Deco, an Italian national, complained of the length of civil proceedings (eight years and eight months) to which he was a party. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which ITL 15,000,000 is to be paid for any damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (7)     Logothetis v. Greece (no. 46352/99)               Violation Article 6 § 1 Ioannis Logothetis, a Greek national, complained about the refusal by the Greek administration to comply with a decision of the Auditor General’s Department granting him a supplementary pension. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded him GRD 500,000 for costs and expenses. The Court also decided, unanimously, to reserve the question of just satisfaction (Article 41). (The judgment is available only in French.)     Section 4                           Friendly settlements In the following four Portuguese cases, the applicants complained about the length of the civil proceedings to which they were parties (the length of time in each case is indicated below). In Ferreira da Silva v. Portugal the applicant also complained of the length of the criminal proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1. The proceedings are still pending in the first three cases.   The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which the following amounts are to be paid in Portuguese escudos (PTE) for any non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   (8)     Ribeiro Ferreira Ruah v. Portugal (38327/97 and 38329/97) started on 9 January 1987 and 30 April 1990              PTE 2,350,000 (9)     Ferreira Martins v. Portugal (no. 39579/98) started on 22 April 1993                  PTE 1,050,000 (10)     Ferreira da Silva v. Portugal (no. 41018/98) started on 13 July 1995                  PTE 850,000 (11)     Jardim Travassos Moura Gaspar v. Portugal (no. 41390/98) lasting seven years, four months and five days            PTE 1,150,000   (12)     Silva Brás v. Portugal (no. 41128/98)                   Friendly settlement Maria Margarida da Silva Brás, a Portuguese national, complained of the length of criminal proceedings to which she was party, lasting eight years and seven months. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which PTE 1,000,000 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage and PTE 250,000 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) 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.   [2] The duration is calculated from the date of the expiry of the lease