III European Union
| Published date | 01 June 2001 |
| DOI | 10.1177/092405190101900207 |
| Author | Mielle Bulterman |
| Date | 01 June 2001 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
NQHR
2/2001
and place them in police custodyfor 15 days withouta review by a judge. On 30 January
2001 the case hasbeen struck offfollowing a friendly settlement. On 27 February 2001 in
the case of Alpay vs Turkey a friendly settlementwas reached in which 75,000US Dollars
is to be paid for anydamages, costs and expenses and the case has been struck off.In the case
ofAbdouni vs Francea friendlysettlement wasreached on 27 February 2001. The applicant,
an Algeriannational who has lived in France from the age of six months, complained,under
Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), about the decision to impose a
definitive prohibition order on him, excludinghim from French territory. On 27 February
2001the case of Santelli vs Franceendedin a friendly settlement.The applicant complained,
under Article 6(1), about excessivelylong administrative proceedings concerning building
permits,lasting up to nine years.The case has been struck out followinga friendlysettlement
in which 40,000 FRF is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage as well as
costsand expenses. In the case of Milazzotto vs Italy the applicantcomplained aboutthe civil
proceedingsto which he was a party, which lasted 12 years and three months.The case has
been struck followinga friendly settlementon 27 february2001 in which 36,000,000 ITL is
to be paid for any non-pecuniarydamage and 5,000,000ITL for costs and expenses.
On 23 January 2001 the Court delivered its judgment on just satisfaction in the case of
Brumarescu vs Romania. In its principaljudgment, deliveredon 28 October 1999, the Court
had found a violationof Article 6 (access to a courtand fair trial) and Article of ProtocolNo.
1. The Grand Chamber held that the respondent State was to return to the applicant, within
six months, thehouse in issue and the land on whichit was situated, except for the flatand
the corresponding part of the land already returned. It further held that, failing such
restitution, the respondent State was to pay the applicant 181,400 United States dollars
(USD) for pecuniary damage.
It
also awardedthe applicantUSD 15,000 for non-pecuniary
damageand USD 2,450, less 3,900 Frenchfrancs receivedby way oflegal aid, for legal costs
and expenses.
III
EUROPEAN
UNION
Mielle Bulterman
A. Treaty of
Nice
On 26 February 2001, the Treaty ofNice was signed by the representatives of the fifteen
MemberStates of the European Union.The main purposeof the Treaty of Nice is to prepare
the institutions
of
the European Union for the enlargement of the European Union. It also
provides for some amendments to the EC and EU Treaty that are relevant from a human
rights perspective.
First of all, the Treaty of Nice provides for an amendment
of
Article 7 EU Treaty. In its
current wording, Article 7 EU Treaty provides a legal basis for sanctions againstan EU
Member State in case of a serious and persistent breach of the democratic principles and
humanrights. As became clear in the case of governmentparticipation of the extremeright
FP6
in Austria,Iitcannot be used when the other MemberStates put into question a Member
State's commitment to respect for humanrights in view of the political developments in the
Member State concerned. The entry into force of the Treaty of Nice would change this: it
would then be possible to take measures againstan EU Member State in case
of'
a clearrisk
See EU Human Rights News, NQHR, Vol. 19, No. 1,2001, pp. 92-94.
200
To continue reading
Request your trial