003-421712-422043

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS    678  27.9.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Finland, Portugal and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments (only the friendly settlement is final[1]):   SECTION 4   (1)  Günay and others v. Turkey (application no. 31850/96)  Violation Article 5 § 3 The applicants, all ten of whom are Turkish nationals, complained about the length of time (between five and 11 days) they were held in police custody, relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded each applicant the following amounts in pounds sterling (GBP) for non-pecuniary damage:   Cafer Cengiz 2,300 GBP Sultan Toptaş and Zübeyit Coşkun 2,000 GBP Mustafa Aydın, Abdulsamat Çelik, Velat Esen and Ekrem Günay 1,150 GBP Abdurrahim Özkahraman 850 GBP Abdurrahman Araz and Hicran Aydoğmuş  550 GBP   A global sum of GBP 1,000 is to be paid for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (2)  Nascimento v. Portugal (no. 42918/98)  Violation Article 6 § 1 Agripino Evaristo do Nascimento, a Portuguese citizen born in 1953 and living in Lyon (France) complained, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) about the length of civil proceedings (14 years and seven months) concerning a traffic accident in which he was involved.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant 50,000 French francs (FRF) for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 10,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (3)  Jesus Mafra v. Portugal (no. 43684/98) Friendly settlement Carlos de Jesus Mafra, a Portuguese national born in 1924 and living in Lisbon, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of civil proceedings concerning the return of a dog.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 200,000 Portuguese escudos (PTE) is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage and PTE 170,275 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (4)  Hirvisaari v. Finland (no. 49684/99) Violation Article 6 § 1 Eero Olavi Hirvisaari, a Finnish national, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, that he did not have a fair trial as the Pension Board and the Insurance Court did not give adequate reasons for their decisions concerning the reduction of his full pension to a partial pension.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 20,000 Finnish marks (FIM) for non-pecuniary damage and FIM 10,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   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.