CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 mars 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 } .s320ECF20 { width:74.11pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7A9D6F2C { width:142.15pt; display:inline-block } .s33401DB6 { width:336.9pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE825D592 { width:80.07pt; display:inline-block } .s86352BD7 { width:69.38pt; display:inline-block } .s538B8F12 { width:34.82pt; display:inline-block } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; 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 } .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     164   8.3.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Switzerland, Italy, Hungary and Portugal     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments: (only the friendly settlements are final [1] )     SECTION 2   (1)     I.O. v. Switzerland (application no. 21529/93)   Friendly settlement I.O., a Turkish national, complained, under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, that the investigating judge who had decided on his detention in custody was not independent and that he had been refused access to his file.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 13,000 Swiss francs is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. The judgment is available only in French.   (2)     Guglielmi v. Italy (no. 32659/96)   Friendly settlement Annalisa Guglielmi, an Italian national, complained about her prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of her apartment and about the duration (over 16 years) of the eviction proceedings [2] . She 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).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 73,000,000 Italian lire (ITL) is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage as well as costs. (Judgment in English)             Friendly settlements In the following two Italian cases, the applicants complained about the length of the civil proceedings to which they were parties. Each case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicants have been awarded the sums indicated below for any damages suffered. (Judgments in French) (3)     Fanelli v. Italy (no. 44361/98) (more than 13 years)   7,000,000 ITL (4)     B.S. v. Italy (no. 44364/98) (28 years and 6 months)   26,000,000 ITL     (5)     Yang Chun Jin Alias Yang Xiaolin v. Hungary (no. 58073/00)   Struck out Yang Chun Jin alias Yang Xiaolin, a national of China and Sierra Leone, alleged that, if extradited to China, he risked having an unfair trial, being detained under harsh conditions, being subjected to torture or sentenced to death. He relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) and 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 (abolition of the death penalty).   Noting that the Hungarian Minister of Justice has decided to refuse the applicant’s extradition to China and that he had left Hungary for Sierra Leone, the Court found that the applicant was no longer threatened with extradition to China from Hungary and that the matter was resolved. The case has therefore been struck out. (Judgment in English)   SECTION 4   Violation Article 6 § 1 In the following two Portuguese cases, the applicants complained about the length of the civil proceedings to which they were parties. The European Court of Human Rights found unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The amounts awarded for damages, costs and expenses are listed below. (Judgments in French)   (6)     Pinto de Oliveira v. Portugal (no. 39297/98) (seven years and nine months and still pending) 800,000 Portuguese escudos (PTE) for non-pecuniary damages and 150,000 PTE for costs and expenses. (7)     Minnema v. Portugal (no. 39300/98) (ten years and two months) 900,000 PTE for non-pecuniary damages and 250,000 PTE for costs and expenses.     ***   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.   [2] The length of time is calculated from the date of the expiry of the lease.