CEDH · PRESS;GCREFERRALS;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 } .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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32B93E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s1E59FF54 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:10pt } .s35F1F2CB { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:10pt } .s995BFA6B { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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   544 29.9.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CASES ACCEPTED FOR REFERRAL TO THE GRAND CHAMBER   The Grand Chamber panel of five judges has accepted the following four cases for referral to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 [1] of the European Convention on Human Rights:   Léger v. France (application no. 19324/02) Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others v. Greece (no. 27278/03) Stoll v. Switzerland (no. 69698/01) Dickson v. United Kingdom (no. 44362/04)   Léger v. France Lucien Léger is a 69-year-old French national who lives in Landas (France).   In July 1964 he was arrested and charged with the abduction and murder of Luc Taron, an 11-year-old boy. He made a confession while in police custody but retracted it several months later. He has protested his innocence ever since.   In a judgment of 7 May 1966, Seine-et-Oise Assize Court found the applicant guilty of the offences charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He made unsuccessful applications in 1971 and 1974 for a retrial.   He became eligible for parole on 5 July 1979 after 15 years in prison. Between 1985 and 1998 Mr Léger made numerous applications for release, all of which were refused. In addition, he made several unsuccessful applications for a presidential pardon.   In 1999 he again requested his release on licence. Despite a favourable opinion by the Sentence Enforcement Board, his request was turned down by the Minister of Justice.   In January 2001 the applicant made a further application for release. He again submitted that friends had offered to accommodate him on his release in an outbuilding at their home and to give him work in their bakery. The Sentence Enforcement Board issued a unanimous opinion in favour of his release on licence and the applicant’s probation and rehabilitation officer also strongly recommended that he be released.   Despite that, Douai Regional Parole Court rejected the request on 6 July 2001 on the grounds that the applicant continued to deny that he had committed the offence of which he had been convicted, that the experts could not exclude the possibility that he was still dangerous and might re-offend and would not be able to do so unless he underwent a course of psychiatric treatment, and that as the applicant had no intention of following such a programme it was not clear that he was making “serious efforts to ensure his social rehabilitation”. That decision was upheld on appeal on 23 November 2001 by the National Parole Court on the grounds that the applicant’s planned rehabilitation had been put in doubt by the intervening bankruptcy of the person who had offered to put him up and give him work and that he was unwilling to seek counselling even though he presented paranoid tendencies.   In January 2005 the applicant again submitted a request for his release on licence, which the prison authorities supported but which was opposed by the public prosecutor, who pleaded in particular the risk that he might re-offend. The court responsible for the execution of sentence ruled that his conduct no longer stood in the way of his release and that the risk of his re-offending had dwindled almost to nothing. It accordingly granted him release on licence.   Consequently, Mr Léger was released on licence on 3 October 2005, after spending more than 41 years in prison.   The applicant complained that his continued detention had become arbitrary, particularly after the refusal of his 2001 application for release on licence. He also submitted that in practice it was tantamount to a whole-life sentence and therefore constituted inhuman and degrading treatment. He relied on Article 5 § 1 (a) (right to liberty and security) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the Convention.   In its Chamber judgment of 11 April 2006 (press release No. 209 , 2006), the Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (a) and no violation of Article 3. The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request.   Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others v. Greece The case concerns 91 applicants who complained in particular about the excessive length of administrative proceedings to which they were parties. They relied, among other things, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   In its Chamber judgment of 18 May 2006, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.   Stoll v. Switzerland Martin Stoll, a Swiss national who lives in Zürich (Switzerland), is a journalist.   In December 1996 Carlo Jagmetti, who was then the Swiss ambassador to the United States, drew up a “strategic   document”, classified as “confidential”, in the course of negotiations between, among others, the World Jewish Congress and Swiss banks concerning compensation due to Holocaust victims for unclaimed assets deposited in Swiss banks.   The document was sent to the person in charge of the matter at the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs in Berne and copies were sent to 19 other people and certain Swiss diplomatic representatives. The applicant obtained a copy, probably as a result of a breach of professional confidence by a person whose identity remains unknown.   On 26 January 1997 the Zürich Sunday newspaper Sonntags-Zeitung published two articles by the applicant under the headings “Carlo Jagmetti insults the Jews” and “The ambassador in bathrobe and climbing boots puts his foot in it again”, accompanied by extracts from the report in question. The next day the Zürich daily Tages-Anzeiger reproduced large extracts from the strategic document and subsequently the newspaper Nouveau Quotidien also published extracts from the report.   On 22 January 1999 Zürich District Court sentenced the applicant to a fine of 800 Swiss francs (approximately 520 euros) for publishing “official confidential deliberations” within the meaning of Article 293 of the Criminal Code. Appeals lodged by the applicant were dismissed by the Federal Court on 5 December 2000.   The Swiss Press Council, to which the case had been referred by the Swiss Federal Council in the meantime, found that by thus shortening the analysis and failing to place the report sufficiently in context, the applicant had irresponsibly made the ambassador’s remarks appear sensational and shocking.   The applicant submitted that his conviction had infringed Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention.   In its Chamber judgment of 25 April 2006 (press release No. 234 , 2006) the Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.   Dickson v. United Kingdom The applicants, Kirk and Lorraine Dickson, are British nationals who were born in 1972 and 1958, respectively. Mr Dickson is in Dovergate Prison, Uttoxeter (United Kingdom) and Mrs Dickson lives in Hull (United Kingdom). In 1994 Mr Dickson was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff (the minimum period to be served) of 15 years. He has no children.   In 1999 he met Lorraine, via a prison pen pal network while she was also imprisoned. In 2001 they married. Mrs Dickson already had three children from other relationships. The couple requested artificial insemination facilities to enable them to have a child together, arguing that it would not otherwise be possible, given Mr Dickson’s earliest release date and Mrs Dickson’s age. The Secretary of State refused their application. They appealed unsuccessfully. The applicants complained about the refusal of access to artificial insemination facilities, relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 12 (right to marry and found a family). In its Chamber judgment of 18 April 2006 (press release No. 222 , 2006) the Court found that in view of those circumstances, it had not been shown that the decision to refuse facilities for artificial insemination was arbitrary or unreasonable or that it failed to strike a fair balance between general interest of the community and the interests of the individual. There had accordingly been no failure to respect the applicants’ rights to private and family life and the Court held by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 8 or 12. The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicants’ 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.