003-68280-68748

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS      353  18.5.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING SLOVAKIA AND PORTUGAL     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments concerning Slovakia and Portugal.     Section 2   1) Gaulieder v. Slovakia (Application number 36909/97) Friendly settlement   Frantisek Gaulieder, a Slovak national born in 1951 and living in Galanta, was in September 1994 elected a member of the National Council of the Slovak Republic for four years. Prior to the election, he had signed both a contract with the Movement for A Democratic Slovakia, which included him in its electoral list, and an undated letter of resignation from the National Council.    On 26 November 1996 he informed the National Council President that he had withdrawn from the parliamentary group of the Movement for A Democratic Slovakia and that he did not intend to resign from his office.  On 28 November 1996 the National Council received a letter dated 26 November stating that the applicant wished to resign. On 4 December 1996 the National Council adopted Resolution No. 482 which terminated the applicant’s office with reference to the letter of resignation. In the debate preceding the vote the applicant denied his intention to resign. On 23 July 1997 the Constitutional Court found that by adopting the resolution, the National Council had violated the applicant’s constitutional rights. On 3 February 2000 the National Council quashed Resolution No. 482.   Mr Gaulieder alleged, among other things, that his office as a Member of Parliament was terminated against his will in breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1  (right to free elections) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the Slovak Government  agreed to issue a press release “expressing their regret about the termination of his [the applicant’s] office as well as about the failure to redress the violation of the principles of the State of law in the applicant’s case”. The applicant was to be paid 1,399,148 Slovak korunas for pecuniary damage and SKK 1 for non-pecuniary damage plus legal cost of SKK 141,877.40. The judgment exists only in English.                   Section 4   2) Fertiladour S.A. v. Portugal (no. 33668/97) [1] Violation Art. 6 § 1              Fertiladour S.A, a company based in Bayonne (France), complained about civil proceedings to which it was a party, which have lasted almost 13 years and are still ongoing. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention and awarded the applicant company 1,500,000 Portuguese escudos for damages and PTE 250,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French).   ***     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) Or:   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 1959 in Strasbourg 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.