003-68294-68762

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS    865  30.11.2000 Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Italy and Switzerland     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments (only M.A. and Others v. Italy is final)[1]:     Section 2   (1)Edoardo Palumbo v. Italy (no. 15919/89)  Violation Articles 1 Protocol  No. 1 and  6 § 1               No violation Article 14 Edoardo Palumbo, an Italian national, complained that emergency legislation on residential property leases prevented him from recovering possession of his flat. He also complained about the duration of the eviction proceedings and that he had suffered discrimination as the legislation protected tenants to the detriment of landlords.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, but no violation of Article 14  (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court awarded the applicant 44,017.840 Italian lire (ITL) for pecuniary damage, ITL 30,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 15,000,000 for costs and expenses. The judgment is available only in English.   (2)  M.B. v. Switzerland (no. 28256/95)          Violation Article 5 § 4   M.B., a Swiss national, complained about the length of the proceedings concerning her release, following her arrest and detention on remand (lasting thirty-four days) on suspicion of involvement in various attacks and assassinations as a member of the terrorist group Carlos. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security) and awarded her 4,000 Swiss francs (CHF) for costs and expenses and dismissed the remainder of her claim for just satisfaction. (Judgment in English)   (3)  M.A. and Others v. Italy (nos. 44814/98, 45401/99, 45732/99, 47463/99 and 47724/99)                                                                                                                                         Friendly settlement   M.A. and 81 other Italian nationals complained, under Article 6 § 1, about the length of civil proceedings to which they were parties, concerning haemophiliacs who had contracted hepatitis B or C, had become seropostive or developed AIDS after undergoing blood transfusions. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which each applicant will receive a sum for any non-pecuniary damage (ITL 4,550,000,000 in total). A global sum of ITL 35,000,000 is also to be paid to all the applicants for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French)   Section 4   (4)  G.B. v. Switzerland (no. 27426/95)         Violation Article 5 § 4   G.B., a Swiss national, complained that the release proceedings in which he was involved were not conducted speedily enough, following his arrest and detention on remand (lasting thirty-two days) on suspicion of having participated, as a member of the terrorist group ‘Carlos’, in an attack on a radio station and in attacks on diplomatic staff in Lebanon and France. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 and awarded him CHF 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and CHF 4,000 for costs and expenses. (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.