CEDH · PRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG — 19 juillet 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 } .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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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   438 19.7.2006   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:   D.H. and Others v. Czech Republic (application no. 57325/00) Evans v. United Kingdom (no. 6339/05)     D.H. and Others v. Czech Republic The applicants are 18 Czech nationals of Roma origin who were born between 1985 and 1991 and live in the Ostrava region (Czech Republic).   Between 1996 and 1999 they were placed in special schools (zvláštní   školy) for children with learning difficulties unable to follow the ordinary school curriculum. By law, the decision to place a child in a special school is taken by the head teacher on the basis of the results of tests to measure the child’s intellectual capacity carried out in an educational psychology and child guidance centre, and requires the consent of the child’s legal representative.   Fourteen of the applicants sought a review by the Ostrava Education Department ( školský úřad ) on the grounds that the tests performed had been unreliable and that their parents had not been sufficiently informed of the consequences of giving consent. The Education Department found that the placements had been made in accordance with the statutory rules.   In addition, 12 of the applicants appealed to the Constitutional Court. They argued that their placement in special schools amounted to a general practice that created segregation and racial discrimination through the coexistence of two autonomous educational systems, namely special schools for the Roma and “normal” primary schools for the majority of the population. That appeal was dismissed on 20 October 1999.   The applicants complained under Article   2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) to the European Convention on Human Rights, taken alone and together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), that they had suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their right to education on account of their Roma origin.   In its Chamber judgment of 7 February 2006 (press release No. 64 , 2006), the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 14, taken in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicants’ request.     Evans v. United Kingdom The applicant, Natallie Evans, is a 34-year-old British national who lives in Wiltshire (United Kingdom).   On 12 July Ms Evans and her partner J started fertility treatment at the Bath Assisted Conception Clinic. On 10 October 2000, during an appointment at the clinic, Ms Evans was diagnosed with a pre-cancerous condition of her ovaries and was offered one cycle of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment prior to the surgical removal of her ovaries. During the consultation held that day with medical staff, Ms Evans and her partner J were informed that they would each need to sign a form consenting to the treatment and that, in accordance with the provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”), it would be possible for either of them to withdraw his or her consent at any time before the embryos were implanted in the applicant’s uterus.   Ms Evans considered whether she should explore other means of having her remaining eggs fertilised, to guard against the possibility of her relationship with J ending. J reassured her that that would not happen.   On 12 November 2001 the couple attended the clinic for treatment, resulting in the creation of six embryos which were placed in storage and, on 26 November 2001, Ms Evans underwent an operation to remove her ovaries. She was told she would need to wait for two years before the implantation of the embryos in her uterus.   In May 2002 the relationship between the applicant and J ended and subsequently, in accordance with the 1990 Act, he withdrew his consent to the continued storage of the embryos or use of them by the applicant.   The applicant brought proceedings before the High Court seeking, among other things , an injunction to require J. to restore his consent. Her claim was refused on 1 October 2003, J having been found to have acted in good faith, as he had embarked on the treatment on the basis that his relationship with Ms Evans would continue. On 1 October 2004, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s judgment. Leave to appeal was refused.   On 26 January 2005 the clinic informed the applicant that it was under a legal obligation to destroy the embryos, and intended to do so on 23   February 2005.   On 27 February 2005 the European Court of Human Rights, to whom the applicant had applied, requested, under Rule 39 (interim measures) of the Rules of Court, that the United Kingdom Government take appropriate measures to prevent the embryos being destroyed by the clinic before the Court had been able to examine the case. The embryos were not destroyed.   The applicant, for whom the embryos represent her only chance of bearing a child to which she is genetically related, has undergone successful treatment for her pre-cancerous condition and is medically fit to continue with implantation of the embryos. It was understood that the Bath clinic was willing to treat her, subject to J’s consent.   The applicant complained that requiring the father’s consent for the continued storage and implantation of the fertilised eggs was in breach of her rights under Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and the rights of the embryos, under Article 2 (right to life).   In its Chamber judgment of 7 March 2006 (press release No. 125 , 2006), the Court held unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 2 concerning the applicant’s embryos; by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 8 concerning the applicant; and, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 14, concerning the applicant. The Court also decided to continue to indicate to the United Kingdom Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that it was desirable in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings that the Government take appropriate measures to ensure that the applicant’s embryos were preserved until the Court’s judgment became final or pending any further order. The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request.     ***   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.