CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 5 avril 2006

.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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CED24E9 { width:27.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   197 5.4.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING ÜNER v. THE NETHERLANDS   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today 05 April 2006 at 9 a.m., in the case of Üner v. the Netherlands (application no. 46410/99).   The applicant   The case concerns an application brought by a Turkish national, Ziya Üner who was born in 1969 and lives in Eskişehir, (Turkey).   Summary of the facts   The applicant came to the Netherlands at the age of 12 with his mother and two brothers to join his father and, in 1988, obtained a permanent residence permit ( vestigingsvergunning ).   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.   The applicant was convicted of manslaughter ( doodslag ) and assault ( zware mishandeling ) on 21   January   1994 and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.   His partner, son and second son (born to the applicant and his partner on 26   June 1996) visited him in prison at least once a week. Both his sons have Netherlands nationality and have been recognised ( erkend ) by him. Neither his partner nor his children speak Turkish.   On 30   January 1997 the Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ) withdrew the applicant’s permanent residence permit and imposed a ten-year exclusion order ( ongewenstverklaring ) on him in view of his conviction of 21   January 1994. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully.   He was deported to Turkey on 11   February 1998. However, it appeared that he returned to the Netherlands soon afterwards and was once more deported to Turkey on 4 June 1998. He again appealed unsuccessfully.   Complaint   The applicant complains that, as a result of the withdrawal of his residence permit and the imposition of a ten-year exclusion order, he has been separated from his family. He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 4 August 1998 and declared partly admissible on 1 June 2004.   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.   The applicant requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber (under Article 43 [1] of the Convention and Rule 73 of the Rules of Court). The panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on 30 November 2005.   On 21 February 2006 the Government of Germany were granted leave to intervene in the written procedure before the Grand Chamber, under Article 36 § 2 (third party intervention) of the Convention.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Nicolas Bratza (British), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Lucius Caflisch (Swiss) [2] Riza Türmen (Turkish), John Hedigan (Irish), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), Ján Šikuta (Slovakian), judges , Rait Maruste (Estonian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), substitute judges , and also Lawrence Early , Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Jolien Schukking , Agent ,   Martin Kuijer, Marie-Louise Van Dongen , Advisers ;   Applicant :   Ranesh Dhalganjansing , Counsel .   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.     ***   Press contacts: Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   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 Convention, 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. [2] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein.