003-914336-940159

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   27.01.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Cyprus and Finland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments, none of which are final.[1] (Both judgments are only available in English.)     Kyprianou v. Cyprus (application no. 73797/01) Violation of Article 6 § 1, 2 and 3(a) The applicant, Michalakis Kyprianou, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1937 and lives in Nicosia. He is a lawyer. He was sentenced to five days’ imprisonment and a fine after being found in contempt of court by an assize court before which he was appearing.   He complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights that he was not tried by an independent and impartial court, as it was the court that alleged him to be in contempt that had tried and punished him. He also complained of a violation of Article 6 § 2 (right to be presumed innocent) and of Article 6 § 3 (a) (right to be informed in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation). Lastly, he complained under Article 10 of a breach of his right to freedom of expression   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, Article 6 § 2, Article 6 § 3 of the Convention and that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 10. The Court awarded the applicant 15,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses.   H.A.L. v. Finland (no. 38267/97) Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, H.A.L., is a Finnish national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Helsinki. He was in receipt of sickness benefit for a depressive illness that prevented him from working and applied for an extension for a further period. However, his application was turned down.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention that the procedure for hearing that application was unfair.   Finding that the applicant was not provided with sufficient information to enable him to participate fully in the proceedings in question, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded him EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.   ***   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 Press contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)  Emma Hellyer (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 by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [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.