CEDH · PRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG — 25 avril 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s8678EDBE { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:47.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s44EC9D0F { width:404pt; display:inline-block } .s41B6A6E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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     232 24.4.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   TWO CASES ACCEPTED FOR REFERRAL TO THE GRAND CHAMBER   The European Court of Human Rights has accepted requests to refer the following two cases to the Grand Chamber, under Article 43 [1] of the European Convention on Human Rights:   J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (application no. 44302/02) and Ramsahai   v. the Netherlands (no. 52391/99)     J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd v. the United Kingdom The applicants are two United Kingdom companies, J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd.   J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd was the registered owner of a plot of 23 hectares of agricultural land in Berkshire (United Kingdom) valued at 21 million pounds sterling (approximately 31 million euros). J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd is the former owner of the land. The owners of property adjacent to the land, Mr. and Mrs. Graham (“the Grahams”) occupied the land under a grazing agreement until 31 December 1983. On 30 December 1983 the Grahams were instructed to vacate the land as the grazing agreement was about to expire. They did not do so.   In January 1984 the applicants refused a request for a further grazing agreement for 1984 because they anticipated seeking planning permission for the development of all or part of the land and considered that continued grazing might damage the prospects of obtaining such permission. From September 1984 onwards until 1999 the Grahams continued to use the land for farming without the applicants’ permission.   In 1997, Mr Graham registered cautions (official warnings) at the Land Registry against the applicant companies’ title on the ground that he had obtained title by adverse possession (occupation of property contrary to the rights of the real owner).   The applicant companies sought the cancellation of the cautions before the High Court and issued further proceedings seeking possession of the disputed land.   The Grahams contested the applicant companies’ claims under the Limitation Act 1980, which provides that a person cannot bring an action to recover any land after the expiration of 12 years of adverse possession by another. They also relied on the Land Registration Act 1925, which provided that, after the expiry of the 12-year period, the registered owner held the land in trust for the squatter.   On 4 February 2000 the High Court held that, since the Grahams enjoyed factual possession of the land from January 1984 and adverse possession took effect from September 1984, the applicant companies had lost their title to the land under the 1980 Act, and the Grahams were entitled to be registered as the new owners.   The applicant companies appealed successfully, but their appeal was overturned by the House of Lords, which, on 4 July 2002, restored the order of the High Court.   The Land Registration Act 2002 – which does not have retroactive effect – now enables a squatter to apply to be registered as owner after ten years’ adverse possession and requires that the registered owner be notified of the application. The registered proprietor is then required to regularise the situation (for example, by evicting the squatter) within two years, failing which the squatter is entitled to be registered as the owner.   The applicants allege that the United Kingdom law on adverse possession, by which they lost land with development potential to a neighbour, operated in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights in their case.   In its Chamber judgment of 15 November 2005, the Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court considered that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Ramsahai v. the Netherlands The applicants, all Netherlands nationals, are: Renee Ramsahai, Mildred Ramsahai and Ricky Ramsahai, the grandfather, grandmother and father, respectively, of Moravia Ramsahai, born on 6 December 1979, who was shot dead by a policeman in July 1998. Renee and Mildred Ramsahai were both born in 1938 and Ricky Ramsahai was born in 1960. They all live in Amsterdam.   In the evening of Sunday 19 July 1998, during the “Kwakoe” festival in the Bijlmermeer district of Amsterdam (a celebration by the Surinamese immigrant community of the abolition of slavery in Suriname 135 years earlier), Moravia Ramsahai stole a scooter from its owner at gunpoint and drove off on it.   The police were notified. Two uniformed police officers on patrol, Officers Brons and Bultstra, spotted a scooter driven by a person fitting the description they had been given – later identified as Moravia Ramsahai – and tried to arrest him.   Officer Bultstra saw Moravia Ramsahai draw a pistol from his trouser belt. Officer Bultstra drew his service pistol and ordered Moravia Ramsahai to drop his weapon. Moravia Ramsahai failed to do so. Officer Brons then approached. Moravia Ramsahai, raised his pistol and pointed it towards Officer Brons, who drew his pistol and fired. Moravia Ramsahai was hit in the neck. At 10.03 p.m. Officer Brons called for an ambulance. When it arrived, at about 10.15 p.m., Moravia Ramsahai was already dead.   A criminal investigation was ordered. Parts of the investigation were carried out by the force to which Officers Brons and Bultstra belonged (Amsterdam/Amstelland police force). The Amsterdam/Amstelland police force were initially in charge of the investigation for the first 15-and-a-half hours and then involved only under the authority of an officer of the State Criminal Investigation Department ( Rijksrecherche ).   Ultimately the public prosecutor, finding that Officer Brons had acted in legitimate self-defence, decided that no prosecution should be brought.   The applicants complained about the circumstances surrounding the shooting of Moravia Ramsahai and the lack of an effective and independent investigation into his death. They relied on Article 2 (right to life), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   In its Chamber judgment of 10 November 2005, the Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 2 concerning the shooting by a police officer of Moravia Ramsahai and a violation of Article 2 concerning the investigation into his death. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), by five votes to two, the Court awarded the applicants 20,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 8,000 (less EUR 701 awarded by the Court for legal aid) for costs and expenses.   ***   Further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   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. [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.