EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

 418

 12.6.2001

Press release issued by the Registrar

CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING

Austria, France and Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments (only Siebenhandl v. Austria is final[1]):

Section 1

(1)  Tričković v. Slovenia (application no. 39914/98)  No violation Article 6 § 1

Ljuben Tričković, a Slovenian national of Serbian origin living in Ljubljana, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1 (determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, about the length of proceedings before the Constitutional Court (lasting two years, seven months and 19 days) concerning his claim for an advance on his military pension. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. (The judgment is available only in English.)

Section 3

(2)  Siebenhandl v. Austria (no. 31778/96) Friendly settlement

Johann Siebenhandl, an Austrian national, complained, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), that restrictions placed on his property by various planning decisions of the Vienna municipality were discriminatory and violated his right to property. In this respect he also relied on Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights). With respect to a building regulation he complained about a lack of access to court, relying on Articles 6 and 13 (right to an effective remedy).

The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 3,150,000 Austrian Schillings (ATS) is to be paid for compensation in respect of any claims resulting from this application. This sum includes ATS 150,000 in respect of costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)

(3)  Brochu v. France (no. 41333/98) Violation Article 6 § 1

Claude Brochu, a French national complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of civil proceedings (ten years, one month and 19 days for six levels of jurisdiction) concerning a neighbour’s use of his property. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 50,000 French francs (FRF) for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only 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
Contact: Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)
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.