CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 3 juin 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCA002234 { width:42.74pt; display:inline-block } .sE28AE700 { width:122.12pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s74A4F7EF { width:78.8pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBC24A496 { width:246.22pt; display:inline-block } .sD259EAAE { width:208.19pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     296   3.6.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING France and Norway   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, of which only Susini and Others v. France is final. [1]   (1)     Benmeziane v. France (application no. 51803/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Bachir Benmeziane is a French national who was born in 1955 and lives in Montgeron. On   18 January 1993 he was charged with several counts of armed robbery, receiving stolen goods and unlawful imprisonment. The Loire-Atlantique Assize Court found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. The conviction was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 22 March 2000.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the proceedings, which had begun when the applicant was formally notified that he was under suspicion and ended with the judgment of the Court of Cassation, had lasted just over seven years and two months at two levels of jurisdiction. Finding most of the delays in the proceedings attributable to State authorities, the Court held unanimously that the applicant’s case had not been heard within a reasonable time, in breach of Article 6 § 1. By way of just satisfaction, it awarded him 6,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (2)     Mouesca v. France (no. 52189/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Jean-Gabriel Mouesca is a French national who was born in 1961 and lives in Paris. On   31   March 2000 the Paris Assize Court, sitting in a special composition to try him for acts of terrorism, sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting murder, armed robbery, theft and possession of explosives. In 1995 the applicant had already lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights an application concerning the length of the criminal proceedings against him. The Commission adopted a report on 14 January 1998 in which it expressed the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   The Court noted that the proceedings had, for the purposes of its examination, lasted just over two years and two months and followed a criminal investigation which had commenced some 13 years previously. Finding most of the delays in the proceedings attributable to State authorities, the Court held unanimously that the applicant’s case had not been heard within a reasonable time, in breach of Article 6 § 1. By way of just satisfaction, it awarded him EUR   1,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (3)     Susini and Others v. France (no. 43716/98)   Friendly settlement The seven applicants, Agathe Susini, Véronique Susini, Anne-Marie Calzarelli, Marie Sueur, Roger Susini, Mathias Ortiz and Charles Susini, are French nationals. They were born in 1933, 1965, 1926, 1935, 1930, 1929 and 1934 and live in Paris, Avignon, Ghisonaccia, Ghisonaccia, Prunelli, Aubervilliers and Ghisonaccia respectively. Pierre Susini, their son, brother and nephew, died of knife wounds in August 1992.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants complained of the length of the criminal proceedings in which they were civil parties and of the lack of an effective domestic remedy whereby they could have raised that complaint.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement under whose terms each of the applicants is to receive EUR 2,300 euros for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. In   addition, Mrs Agathe Susini is to receive EUR 5,328.18 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation Article 6 § 1 concerning failure to communicate observations   No violation Article 6 § 1 concerning omission to communicate complete case file (4)     Walston v. Norway (no.1) (no. 37372/97)   The applicants, Møyfrid Walston and Michael Walston, are a Norwegian and a US national, born in 1948 and 1945 respectively and living in Stryn (western Norway).   In 1986 they bought property in Stryn for 1 Norwegian kroner (NOK) and borrowed NOK   2.8 million from the Bergen Bank to renovate it. The loan was secured on the Stryn property and another property they owned in Vågsøy. When they defaulted on the loan repayments, the bank brought proceedings for their properties to be sold at auction. The applicants unsuccessfully challenged the first-instance judge hearing the bank’s application. The sale of the Stryn property was confirmed on 8 March 1996. The applicants appealed unsuccessfully. In November 1995 the Bank applied for the Vågsøy property to be sold by auction. Its application was granted on 25 June 1996. In the subsequent appeal proceedings a set of additional observations submitted by the Bank’s lawyer was not communicated either to the applicants or their lawyer until they were notified of the High Court’s judgment of 3   December 1996 upholding the decision granting the Bank’s application. On 25 October 1996 the applicants’ lawyer stopped acting for them and the applicants requested copies of all the documents relating to both appeals. They appealed to the Appeals Selection Committee of the Supreme Court, which dismissed their appeals on 6   February 1997.   The applicants complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal) that, before taking its decision dismissing their appeal, the High Court had failed to transmit a copy of their opponent’s observations to them or their representative and had failed to send them a complete copy of the case file after their representative had stopped acting for them.   The Court found that the applicants had had a legitimate interest in receiving a copy of the Bank’s additional observations and had been put at a disadvantage in the High Court proceedings by their inability to reply to them. It held unanimously that there had accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on this point.   However, the Court unanimously found that there had been no violation in respect of the High Court’s omission to communicate the complete case file to the applicants personally after their lawyer had ceased acting for them. Apart from the one set of additional observations, their lawyer had received all the case documents. There was nothing to suggest that the Bank had relied on evidence that was not in the possession of the applicants’ lawyer. Before ceasing to act for them, he had already made extensive submissions in support of their appeal, which had been limited to the question of impartiality of the first-instance judge. Lastly, the applicants had not substantiated their claim that the case file contained evidence of which they had not already had knowledge.   The Court awarded the applicants EUR 8,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   10,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   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.