CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 juin 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sE0EA7154 { width:21.33pt; display:inline-block } .sF92F5487 { width:269.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC86EC395 { width:21.18pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s58F960FF { width:56.14pt; display:inline-block } .sC401B41E { width:77.45pt; 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 } .s19E53254 { width:2.39pt; display:inline-block } .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     425   14.6.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Switzerland, Turkey and Portugal   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments (the judgments in Kamil T. Sürek v. Turkey and Fonseca Carreira v. Portugal are final [1] )   Section 2   (1)   Medenica v. Switzerland (application no. 20491/92)   No violation Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 c)   Rajko Medenica, a US citizen of Yugoslav origin (now deceased), was prevented from attending his trial in Geneva by a court decision forbidding him from leaving the United States. He complained of the lack of fairness in the criminal proceedings as he was tried and sentenced in his absence.   The European Court of Human Rights held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 3 (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing) of the European Convention on Human Rights. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (2)   Kamil T. Sürek v. Turkey (application no. 34686/97)              Friendly settlement   Kamil Tekin Sürek complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights of his conviction by the State Security Court for propaganda on behalf of illegal terrorist organisations. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement whereby a total of USD 4,300 is to be paid for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French)   Section 4   (3)     Santos and others v. Portugal (no. 41598/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Adelino Santos and Aida da Conceição Santos, both Portuguese nationals, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time), about the length of civil proceedings (seven years and one month) concerning the determination of an estate. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicants 1,400,000 Portuguese escudos (PTE) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (4)     Fonseca Carreira v. Portugal (no. 42176/98)   Friendly settlement   Maria Isabel Fonseca Carreira, a Portuguese national, complained about the length of civil proceedings (almost eight years) concerning compensation for injuries she suffered following a traffic accident. Article 6 § 1. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement whereby a total of PTE 1,100,000 is to be paid of which PTE 850,000 is for any non-pecuniary damage and PTE 250,000 is 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 Contact:   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.