CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG — 28 août 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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB7B6161 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:right } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3CC44341 { width:17.82pt; display:inline-block } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6C3BEA1 { width:7.1pt; display:inline-block } .sCD3585DE { width:49.6pt; display:inline-block } .sA3C9CA02 { width:170.6pt; display:inline-block } .sC052AE2B { width:6pt; display:inline-block } .s71E8A580 { width:21.88pt; display:inline-block } .sA3A5F497 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#ffffff } .sAC8F7D27 { width:0.43pt; display:inline-block } .s510CFEE3 { width:22.25pt; display:inline-block } .sCCB5EDD4 { width:98.55pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 474 28.8.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARINGS IN SEPTEMBER   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding the following hearings in September 2006 :   Tuesday 5 September 2006 Chamber Hearing on the merits 9 a.m.   Yumak and Sadak   v. Turkey (application no. 10226/03)   The application concerns Turkish electoral law, according to which a party must obtain at least 10% of the national vote in parliamentary elections in order to win seats in the National Assembly. The applicants, Mehmet Yumak and Resul Sadak, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1962 and 1959 respectively and live in Şırnak (Turkey). Mr Yumak is self-employed, while Mr Sadak is Mayor of Idil. In the parliamentary elections of 3 November 2002 the applicants stood as candidates for the political party DEHAP (Democratic People’s Party) in the province of Şırnak. As a result of the ballot, DEHAP obtained approximately 45.95% of the vote (47,449 votes) in Şırnak province, but did not secure 10% of the vote nationally. The applicants were not elected, in accordance with section 33 of the Election of Members of Parliament Act (Law No. 2939), which states that “in order to secure seats in Parliament, parties must obtain at least 10% of the valid votes cast nationally”. Consequently, of the three parliamentary seats allotted to Şırnak province, two were filled by the AKP (Justice and Development Party), which obtained 14.05% of the vote (14,460 votes), and the third by an independent candidate, Mr Tatar, who obtained 9.69% of the vote (9,914 votes). Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants submit that setting a threshold of 10% of the vote in parliamentary elections interferes with the free expression of the people in their choice of the legislature.               Tuesday 12 September 2006   Chamber         Hearing on the admissibility and merits 9.30 a.m.   Burden v. United Kingdom (no. 13378/05)   admissibility and merits   The applicants, J.M. and S.D. Burden, are British nationals who were born in 1918 and 1925 respectively. They are unmarried sisters and live in Marlborough (United Kingdom), in the house they inherited from their parents, where they have lived together all their lives.   The house, which is valued at 875,000 pounds sterling (GBP) (equivalent to 1,292,066 Euros (EUR)), is owned jointly by the applicants, such that each has a GBP 437,500 (EUR 646,033) share. Each sister has made a will leaving all her property to the other sister.   The sisters, both in their eighties, are concerned that, when one of them dies, the other will be forced to sell the house to pay inheritance tax. Under the 1984 Inheritance Tax Act, inheritance tax is charged at 40% on the value of a person’s property. That rate applies to any amount in excess of GBP 285,000 (EUR 420,844) for transfers during the tax year 2006-2007 and GBP 300,000 (EUR 442,994) for 2007-2008.   Property passing from the deceased to his or her spouse or “civil partner” (a category introduced under the 2004 Civil Partnership Act for same-sex couples, which does not cover family members living together) is currently exempt from charge.   The applicants complain that, when one of them died, the survivor would face a heavy inheritance tax bill, unlike the survivor of a marriage or a civil partnership. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), taken in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), to the European Convention on Human Rights.     Wednesday 20 September 2006   Grand Chamber     9 a.m.   Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland (no. 63235/00)     The applicants are: Vilho Eskelinen, Arto   Huttunen, Markku Komulainen, Lea Ihatsu, Toivo Pallonen and the heirs of the late Hannu Matti Lappalainen (Päivi, Janne and Jyrki Lappalainen). They were born in 1955, 1953, 1954, 1956, 1937, 1957, 1983 and 1981 respectively and are all Finnish nationals living in Sonkakoski or Sonkajärvi (Finland).   Mr Eskelinen, Mr   Huttunen, Mr Komulainen, Ms Ihatsu, Mr Pallonen and Hannu Matti Lappalainen all worked for the Sonkajärvi District Police. Under a collective agreement of 1986, they were entitled to a special allowance for working in a remote area. When that allowance was withdrawn in 1988, they were given individual wage supplements to make up the difference.   On 1 November 1990, after being moved to another duty police station even further away from their homes, the applicants lost their individual wage supplements. They maintain, however, that Kuopio Provincial Police Command promised them compensation.   On 3 July 1991 the Ministry of Finance refused a request for authorisation to pay each applicant a monthly individual wage supplement of 500-700 Finnish marks (EUR 84-118). The applicants subsequently lodged an application for compensation, which was rejected.   The applicants appealed, asking for an oral hearing to prove, among other things, that they had been promised compensation. Their appeal was rejected on the ground that, at the relevant time, only the Ministry of Finance (and not the provincial police command) could authorise compensation. The court also found that no compensation had been awarded in other similar cases.   The applicants appealed again, requesting an oral hearing and emphasising that allowances had been granted to other police personnel in similar circumstances. On 27 April 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court found that the applicants had no statutory right to the individual wage supplements and that it was unnecessary to hold a hearing, given that the alleged promises made by the provincial police command had no bearing on the case.   The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings and the lack of an oral hearing. They further complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that they lost their entitlement to a special allowance and had received no compensation. Under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), they maintain that they were treated differently from other police personnel. They also rely on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   On 21 March 2006 the Chamber relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.     Wednesday 27 September 2006   Grand Chamber     9 a.m.   O’Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom (nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02)   The applicants, Gerard O’Halloran and Idris Francis, are United Kingdom nationals who were born in 1933 and 1939 respectively. Mr O’Halloran lives in London and Mr   Francis lives in Petersfield (United Kingdom).   On 7 April 2000 Mr O’Halloran’s vehicle was caught on a speed camera driving at 69 miles per hour (mph) on the M11 motorway, where the temporary speed limit was 40 mph. On 12 June 2001 Mr Francis’ car was caught on speed camera driving at 47 mph, where the speed limit was 30 mph.   In each case the applicant was subsequently informed that the police intended to prosecute the driver of the vehicle. He was asked for the full name and address of the driver of the vehicle on the relevant occasion or to supply other information that was in his power to give and which would lead to the driver’s identification. Each applicant was further informed that failing to provide information was a criminal offence under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.   Mr O’Halloran answered his letter confirming that he was the driver at the relevant time. Mr Francis, however, wrote to the police invoking his right to silence and privilege against self-incrimination.   On 27 March 2001 Mr O’Halloran was tried before North Essex Magistrate’s Court. Prior to the trial, he sought unsuccessfully to have his confession excluded as evidence, relying on sections 76 and 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 read in conjunction with Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention. He was convicted of driving in excess of the speed limit and fined 100 pounds sterling (GBP) (equivalent to EUR 147.66), ordered to pay GBP 150 (EUR 221.49) costs and had his licence endorsed with six penalty points. On 19 October 2001 his application for judicial review of the magistrates’ decision was refused.   On 28 August 2001 Mr Francis was summoned to the Magistrates’ Court for failing to comply with section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. On 15 April 2002 he was convicted and fined GBP 750 (EUR 1,107.49) with GBP 250 (EUR 369.16) costs and three penalty points. He maintains that the fine was substantially heavier than that which would have been imposed had he pleaded guilty to the speeding offence.   Mr O’Halloran complains that he was convicted solely or mainly on account of the statement he was compelled to provide under threat of a penalty similar to the offence itself. Mr Francis complains that being compelled to provide evidence of the offence he was suspected of committing infringed his right not to incriminate himself. Both applicants rely on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 2 (presumption of innocence).   On 11 April 2006 the Chamber relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.     ***   Decisions, judgments and 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.