CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 17 avril 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sCCBA88C { width:132.13pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s499DE589 { width:242.91pt; display:inline-block } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; display:inline-block } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s177718D9 { width:461.13pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sCBCBF091 { width:21.9pt; display:inline-block } .sD7351C84 { width:132.79pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     208   17.4.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Austria, Germany and Italy   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 16 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]   Section 1   (1)     Kolb and Others v. Austria (application nos.   35021/97 and 45774/99) Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicants, Max Kolb, Josef Holaus, Georg Taxacher and Georg Wechselberger, are Austrian nationals, born in 1938, 1942, 1948 and 1962 respectively. They are farmers and live in Stumm (Austria).   In July 1988 parcels of land belonging to the applicants were regrouped under a land-consolidation scheme and compensatory parcels transferred to them. Their appeals against the land-consolidation scheme were dismissed between May 1996 and March 1998.   The applicants complained of a breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights as a result of the length of the proceedings. Mr Kolb also complained that throughout the proceedings he had not had a public hearing.   The European Court of Human Rights found that the proceedings had lasted seven years and eight months as regards Mr Kolb, ten years and four months as regards Mr Holaus and nine and a half years as regards Mr Taxacher and Mr Wechselberger. It found that considerable delays were attributable to the authorities and that no substantial delay could be attributed to the applicants. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that respect.   The Court observed that Mr Kolb had not had a public hearing at any stage of the proceedings. His explicit request for one had been dismissed by the Administrative Court. Since the Government had not identified any exceptional circumstances that might have justified dispensing with a hearing, the Administrative Court’s refusal to hold one had amounted to a breach of his right to a public hearing.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicants the following amounts for non-pecuniary damage: 5,500 euros (EUR) to Mr Kolb; EUR 7,500 to Mr Holaus; EUR 7,000 to Mr   Taxacher and EUR   7,000 to Mr Wechselberger; it also awarded all four applicants EUR   4,000 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (2)     Petschar v. Austria (no. 36519/97)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Marianne Petschar, is an Austrian national, born in 1940 and living in Villach (Austria).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), she complained about the length of administrative proceedings (11 years) in connection with her request to build a road for transporting timber over another’s property.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 11,000 euros is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     The applicants in the following 13 Italian cases complained about their prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of their apartments and about the duration of the eviction proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   In all the cases except one the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. The case of Giannatiempo v. Italy was struck out following a friendly settlement. The Court awarded the applicants the following amounts, in euros (EUR), for any non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage, costs and expenses . (All judgments are available only in English except P.M., Nigiotti and Mori, Giannatiempo, Losanno and Vanacore, Zannetti, and de Benedittis , which are available only in French.)         Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation Article 6 § 1   Pecuniary damage non-pecuniary damage costs and expenses (3)     P.M. v. Italy (no. 34998/97) * EUR 21,000 EUR    3,000 EUR 1,000 (4)     Nigiotti and Mori v. Italy (no. 35024/97) ** EUR    6,500 EUR    7,500 EUR 1,000 (5)     Losanno and Vanacore v. Italy (no. 36149/97) ** EUR    3,750 EUR    6,000 EUR 1,000 (6)     Massimo Rosa v. Italy (no. 36249/97) EUR    6,700 EUR    5,000 EUR 1,500 (7)     Clucher v. Italy (no. 36268/97) ** EUR 13,833.33 EUR    3,000 EUR     300 (8)     Zannetti v. Italy (no. 36377/97) EUR    7,400 EUR    5,000 EUR 2,000 (9)     Pannocchia v. Italy (no. 37008/97) EUR 10,000 EUR   6,197.48 EUR 2,000 (10)     de Benedittis v. Italy (no. 37117/97) EUR    1,200 EUR    7,000 EUR 2,000 (11)     Aponte v. Italy (no. 38011/97) - EUR    3,000 EUR 1,500 (12)     Pepe v. Italy (no. 46161/99) EUR    2,000 EUR    3,000 EUR 2,000 (13)     Fabi v. Italy (no. 48145/99) - EUR    3,000 EUR 1,000 (14)     Pulcini v. Italy (no. 59539/00) EUR 18,000 EUR 10,000 - * to each of the applicant’s two heirs. ** to each applicant         Friendly settlement (15)     Giannatiempo v. Italy (no. 35969/97)   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 10,150 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses   Section 3   (16)     Yilmaz v. Germany (no. 52853/99)   Violation Article 8 Saldiray Yilmaz is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 in Marktoberdorf (Germany) and now lives in Turkey. His parents and sisters live in Germany and have authorisation to reside there ( Aufenthaltsberechtigung ). In 1992 he obtained unlimited permission to reside in Germany ( unbefristete Aufenthaltserlaubnis ). In January 1999 he began cohabiting with a German national with whom he had a son, born in February 1999. He lived in Germany continuously until 7 March 2000, the date on which he left for Turkey when his appeals against deportation were dismissed.   On 20 August 1996 the applicant was sentenced by the Kempten Juvenile Court to one year and ten months’ imprisonment, suspended with probation, for offences which included four counts of aggravated robbery as a member of a gang and preparing and inciting to commit aggravated robbery with violence. On 21 November 1996 the Neu-Ulm Juvenile Court sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment, unsuspended, which was to include the term of imprisonment imposed on 20 August 1996, for aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm and joint coercion to engage in sexual acts on account of acts committed between prisoners while he was detained pending trial. He was released on 18 December 1997, after serving two-thirds of his sentence.   In September 1998 the administrative authorities informed the applicant that if he did not leave Germany by 15 October 1998 he would be removed to Turkey pursuant to section 47, sub-sections 1 and 3, of the Aliens Act ( Ausländergesetz) ; he was also excluded from German territory for an indefinite period. He made a number of unsuccessful administrative appeals, and on 29 October 1999 the Federal Constitutional Court ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) refused to entertain an appeal by him.   On 15 June 2000 the German authorities refused to grant him a temporary residence permit so that he could visit his child.   The applicant submitted that his deportation to Turkey and the exclusion order against him had breached Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention.   As it had been the Federal Constitutional Court’s decision that had made the applicant’s deportation final, the Court assessed its effects on the date of that decision. It noted that it constituted interference with his right to family life, was prescribed by the Aliens Act and had the legitimate aim of “preventing disorder or crime”.   As to whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society, the Court considered that the applicant’s deportation was not disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued by the authorities. However, the fact that his exclusion from German territory had been ordered for an indefinite period amounted to a disproportionate interference in view of his family situation – particularly the birth of his son and the latter’s young age – and the fact that he had previously held unlimited permission to reside there. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of 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: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Joanna Reynell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (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.