CEDH · PRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG — 16 décembre 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s527FFC79 { width:237.51pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 701 16.12.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   THREE CASES REFERRED TO GRAND CHAMBER   The European Court of Human Rights has accepted requests to refer the following three cases to the Grand Chamber, under Article 43 [1] of the European Convention on Human Rights:   Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (application no. 60654/00) The applicants, Svetlana Sisojeva, her husband Arkady Sisojev and their daughter Aksana Sisojeva, were born in 1949, 1946 and 1978 respectively. Mr Sisojev and Aksana Sisojeva are Russian nationals; Svetlana Sisojeva has no nationality. All three live in Alūksne (Latvia).   Mr Sisojev, who was a soldier in the Soviet army, was stationed in Latvia in 1968 and served there until he was demobilised in 1989. His wife came to Latvia in 1969 and their daughter was born there. Following the break-up of the Soviet Union and the restoration of Latvia’s independence in 1991, the applicants, who had previously been Soviet nationals, became stateless. In 1993 Mr Sisojev and his wife applied unsuccessfully for permanent resident status in Latvia.   The applicants complained about the Latvian authorities’ refusal to regularise their status in Latvia and also about the questioning of Svetlana Sisojeva by security police about her application before the European Court of Human Rights. They relied on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 34 (right of individual application) of the Convention.   In its Chamber judgment of 16 June 2005 the Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 8 and that the Latvian Government had complied with its obligations under Article 34.   Hermi v. Italy (no. 18114/02) The applicant, Fausi Hermi, is a Tunisian national who was born in 1969. He is currently in Frosinone Prison (Italy).   Criminal proceedings were brought against him for drug trafficking and, on 24 March 2000, he was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and a fine of about EUR   20,658.   The applicant was denied permission to be released from prison to attend a hearing concerning his appeal against the judgment of 24 March 2000 before the Rome Court of Appeal. His appeal was dismissed. He complained that he was unable to take part in his appeal hearing, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   In its Chamber judgment of 28 June 2005, the Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Üner v. the Netherlands (no. 46410/99)   The applicant, Ziya Üner, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Eskişehir, (Turkey).   The applicant, aged 12, came to the Netherlands with his mother and two brothers to join his father and, in 1988, obtained a permanent residence permit. In or around June 1991, he started living with a Netherlands national. The couple had a son, born on 4 February 1992. The applicant moved out in November 1992, but remained in close contact with both his partner and son.   Following his conviction for manslaughter and assault, the applicant’s permanent residence permit was withdrawn and a ten-year exclusion order imposed on him.   The applicant complained that, as a result of the withdrawal of his residence permit and the imposition of a ten-year exclusion order, he was separated from his family. He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   In its Chamber judgment of 5 July 2005, the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 8.   ***   Further information about the Court can be found 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. [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.