003-68226-68694

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS  903  14.12.2000 Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING: Finland, Greece, Poland and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments:   Section 2   (1)  Kallitsis v. Greece (no. 46351/99)              Friendly settlement Evangelos Kallitsis, a Greek national, complained about the refusal of the authorities to comply with a judgment of the Court of Audit granting him a supplementary pension. He invoked Article 6 § 1 (right to have civil rights determined) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case has been struck out at the applicant’s request after an agreement was reached between the parties, following the publication of a decision by the Greek Minister of Finance dealing with the execution of relevant judgments on supplementary pensions for retired magistrates. The judgment is available only in French.   Section 4   (2)  Institute of French Priests and Others v. Turkey (no. 26308/95)       Friendly settlement The Institute of French Priests (Institut de Prêtres français) and a group of priests and parishioners complained about the Turkish courts’ decision to register a plot of land belonging to the Institute in the name of the Treasury and of the Directorate General of Foundations, on the ground that the Institute was no longer eligible for special treatment as a religious body, because it had let part of its garden and buildings to a private company for various sporting activities. The applicants invoked Articles 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention and Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion).   The case has been struck out after a friendly settlement was agreed between the parties, in which:   “The Treasury and the Directorate General of Foundations recognise a life tenancy in favour of the priests representing the applicant Institute. This life tenancy shall comprise the full use and enjoyment of the land and the buildings thereon. The Institute shall thereby be entitled to rent the land for profit-making purposes in order to meet its needs. The Institute agrees to the levy by the Treasury and the Directorate General of Foundations of a reasonable sum from the income received in rent. The Treasury and the Directorate General of Foundations agree to undertake the formalities necessary to register their respective declarations in the land register with a view to renewing the life tenancy in favour of the priests who will replace the current life tenants... The Directorate General of Foundations waives its claim to USD 41,670 owed by the applicant Institute in rent collected over the five years since its property title was annulled.”   (Judgment in French)   (3)  Jeznach v. Poland (no. 27580/95)       Struck out Marian Jeznach, a Polish national, complained, under Articles 3 (prohibition of torture) and 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, about the lawfulness and conditions of his detention on remand on suspicion of attempted manslaughter and unauthorised possession of weapons. The case has been struck out after he informed the Court that he did not wish to pursue his application. (Judgment in English)   (4)  H.L. v. Finland (no. 33600/96)                Friendly settlement H. L., a Finnish national, complained, under Article 6 § 1, about the length (around five years and ten months) of criminal proceedings in relation to the insolvency and liquidation of three companies of which he was managing director.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 25,000 Finnish marks (FIM) is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage and FIM 33,934 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in English)   (5)  Malinowska v. Poland[1] (no. 35843/97)         Violation Article 6 § 1 Krystyna Malinowska, a Polish national, complained about the length (more than eighteen years and eight months, according to the applicant, and still pending) of civil proceedings in relation to her civil action for compensation for coal used by tenants of her greenhouse.   The European Court of Human Rights took into consideration seven years, six months and 21 days[2] and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and awarded her 25,000 Polish zlotys for non-pecuniary damage. (Judgment 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.     [2] Since Poland’s acceptance of the right of individual application took effect (1 May 1993).