CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 18 octobre 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA8C2B9B0 { width:20.37pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .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   605 18.10.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING RAMSAHAI AND OTHERS v. NETHERLANDS   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today 18 October 2006 at 9 a.m., in the case of Ramsahai and Others v. Netherlands (application no.   52391/99).   The applicants   The case concerns an application brought by three Netherlands nationals, 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.   Summary of the facts   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 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 Amsterdam/Amstelland Police Force (to which Officers Brons and Bultstra belonged); it was 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.     Complaints   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) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 September 1999 and declared admissible on 3 March 2005.   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 [1] of the Convention and Rule   73 of the Rules of Court) on 12 April 2006 at the request of the Government.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Nicolas Bratza (British), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot) Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), judges , Wilhelmina Thomassen (Netherlands) , ad hoc judge , Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), András Baka (Hungarian), substitute judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Deputy Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Roeland Böcker , Agent ,   Martin Kuijer ,   Tessa Dopheide , Advisers ;        Applicants :   G.P. Hamer , M. Van Delft , Counsel .     ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private.   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