CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG — 29 septembre 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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3F08B7AD { width:1.98pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s241956C { width:229.55pt; display:inline-block } .sBF11BE31 { width:22.68pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s55E2496A { width:232.59pt; display:inline-block } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   543 29.9.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARINGS IN OCTOBER   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding the following hearings in October 2006 :   Tuesday 3 October 2006   Chamber Hearing on the merits 9 a.m.   Zengin v. Turkey (application no. 1448/04) The applicants, Hasan Zengin and his daughter Eylem Zengin, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1960 and 1988 respectively and live in Istanbul. The members of Mr Zengin’s family are adherents of Alevism. [1]   At the time the present application was lodged, Eylem Zengin was attending the seventh grade of the State school in Avcılar, Istanbul. As a pupil at a State school, she was obliged to attend classes in religious culture and ethics. Under Article 24 of the Turkish Constitution and section 12 of Basic Law no. 1739 on national education, religious culture and ethics is a compulsory subject in Turkish primary and secondary schools.   In February 2001 the applicant submitted a request to the Provincial Directorate of National Education for his daughter to be exempted from lessons in religious culture and ethics. When the authorities refused his request, Mr Zengin applied to the administrative courts, arguing that the course in question was incompatible with the principle of secularism and that the lessons, which were based on the teaching of Sunni Islam, were not neutral.   On 28 December 2001 Istanbul Administrative Court rejected the application on the ground that the course in religious culture and ethics was in accordance with the Constitution and with Turkish legislation. The applicant applied to the Supreme Administrative Court, which upheld the judgment on 5 August 2003.   The applicants maintain that the way in which religious culture and ethics is taught in Turkey infringes Miss Zengin’s right to freedom of religion and her parents’ right to ensure her education in conformity with their religious convictions. They rely on Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education).       Thursday 5 October 2006   Chamber     Hearing on the admissibility and merits 9 a.m.   Tønsberg Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway (no. 510/04) The applicants are Tønsberg Blad A/S and Marit Haukom. Tønsberg Blad A/S publishes the newspaper Tønsberg Blad, a regional newspaper owned by Orkla Media A/S, which appears six days a week and had a daily average circulation of 33,314 in 2002. Ms Haukom, the paper’s editor-in-chief at the relevant time, is a Norwegian national who was born in 1952 and lives in the City of Tønsberg in Southern Norway.   On 11 October 1999 Tjøme Municipal Council drew up a list identifying property owners suspected of having holiday homes in the area, in breach of local regulations. Regulation ( forskrift ) of 14 December 1984 no. 2089 required that homes bought within the Tjøme Municipality be the owners’ permanent residence, in order to control the exceptionally high demand for holiday homes, particularly from people living in and around Oslo. The list, which was discussed by a council committee on 12 October 1999, included a famous singer and Tom Vidar Rygh, then Executive Vice-President of Orkla ASA , one of Norway’s largest industrial companies.   The Rygh family had used the house in question as its main residence from 1988, when they had had it built, until they moved to Oslo in 1998.   On 8 June 2000 Tønsberg Blad published articles about the list featuring Mr Vidar Rygh and the famous singer, stating that they might be “forced to sell their properties at Tjøme” because: “according to Tjøme Municipality, [they] do not comply with the permanent residence requirements applying to their properties”. The articles included a small photo of Mr Rygh with the caption: “it must be due to a misunderstanding, says Tom Vidar Rygh”.   After being informed that the Rygh family’s property had been removed from the list, the newspaper published an additional article which noted that Mr Viday Rygh and the singer had “got off” and included criticisms of “major loopholes” in the system, in that the regulations did not apply to houses which had been built by the owners.   In a further article, published on 8 August 2000 and entitled “ Tønsbergs Blad clarifies”, the paper stated that the properties belonging to the singer and the Rygh family had been removed from the list in question, as the regulations did not apply to their properties.   On 15 September 2000 Mr Rygh brought private criminal proceedings against the newspaper and Ms Haukom.   On 13 September 2001 the applicants were acquitted and Mr Rygh was ordered to pay NOK 183,387 for costs. The court found that a defamatory allegation had been made but, with reference to Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, attached special importance to the public interest of the permanent residence issue and to the freedom of the press.   Mr. Rygh appealed and, on 21 May 2002, Agder High Court upheld Mr Rygh’s claims in part. Under Article 253 of the Penal Code, the High Court declared the impugned statements null and void and ordered the applicants to pay Mr Rygh NOK 50,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.   The applicants appealed unsuccessfully to the Supreme Court which, on 1 July 2003, ordered them to pay Mr Rygh NOK 673,879 for costs.   The applicants complain about the Supreme Court’s decision of 1 July 2003, relying on Article 10 of the Convention.   Tuesday 17 October 2006   Chamber Hearing on the merits 9 a.m.   L. v. Lithuania (no. 27527/03)   The applicant, Mr L., is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Klaipėda. At birth he was registered as a girl, with a name clearly identifiable as female. However, from an early age, he submits that he felt his gender was male rather than female.   On 18 May 1997 the applicant consulted a micro-surgeon about gender reassignment, who recommended that he consult a psychologist. He therefore went to Vilnius Psychiatric Hospital for tests in November 1997, where (it was later confirmed) he was diagnosed as a transsexual. On 16 December 1997 a doctor at Vilnius University Santariškės Hospital also diagnosed the applicant as a transsexual and advised that he consult a psychologist.   An entry in the applicant’s medical file of 28   January 1998 included a recommendation that he pursue hormone treatment with a view to eventual gender reassignment surgery, following which he was officially prescribed hormone treatment for two months.   The applicant submits that in 1999 his doctor refused to prescribe hormone therapy, in view of the legal uncertainly as to whether or not full gender reassignment could be legally carried out. Thereafter the applicant continued the hormone treatment “unofficially”.   In 1999 the applicant went to Vilnius University, where his request to be registered under his chosen male name was accepted on compassionate grounds. However, his request the same year – that that his name on all official documents be changed to reflect his male identity –was refused.   From 3 to 9 May 2000 the applicant underwent “partial gender reassignment surgery”, namely a breast removal procedure, in the light of the new Civil Code which was due to be adopted. Article 2.27 § 1 of the Code, which entered into force on 1 July 2003, provides that “an unmarried adult has the right to gender reassignment ( pakeisti lytį ) in a medical way, if that is medically possible”. The second paragraph of the provision stipulates that “the conditions and procedure for gender reassignment shall be established by law”. The applicant agreed with the doctors that a further surgical step would be carried out following the adoption of the relevant laws governing those “conditions and procedures”. No such laws have as yet been adopted.   In 2000, with the assistance of a Lithuanian Member of Parliament, the applicant chose a new name and surname for his birth certificate and passport, which were of Slavic origin, to avoid disclosing his gender; Lithuanian names and surnames are gender-sensitive. However, his personal code on his new birth certificate and passport (and on his Vilnius University diploma) remains unchanged; as it starts with the number four, it identifies his gender as female.   The applicant maintains that he faces a vast amount of daily embarrassment and difficulties; for example, he is unable to apply for a job, pay social security contributions, consult a doctor, communicate with the authorities, obtain a bank loan or cross the State border, without his female gender being disclosed.   The applicant complains about the lack of legislation allowing him to complete gender reassignment surgery and pursue his life as a person of male gender, relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private life), 12 (right to marry), and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Wednesday 18 October 2006   Grand Chamber   9 a.m.   Ramsahai and Others v. Netherlands (no. 52391/99) 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 complain about the circumstances surrounding the shooting of Moravia Ramsahai and the lack of an effective and independent investigation into his death. They rely 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.   The case was referred to the Grand Chamber (under Article 43 [2] of the Convention and Rule 73 of the Rules of Court) on 12 April 2006 at the request of the Government.   ***   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. [1] Alevism, which has deep roots in Turkish society and history, is generally considered as one of the branches of Islam, influenced in particular by the great Sufis of the 12 th and 14 th centuries and by certain pre-Islamic beliefs. Its religious practices differ from those of the Sunni schools of law in certain aspects such as prayer, fasting and pilgrimage. [2] 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