CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG — 29 novembre 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 } .sBF11BE31 { width:22.68pt; display:inline-block } .sE67B0316 { width:167.86pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD5EE622 { width:142.56pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF6C3BEA1 { width:7.1pt; display:inline-block } .sCD3585DE { width:49.6pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   734 29.11.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARINGS IN DECEMBER   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding the following hearings in December 2006 :   Tuesday 5 December 2006   Chamber Admissibility and merits 9 a.m.   Giuliani v. Italy (application no. 23458/02)     The application concerns the death of the applicants’ son and brother, 23-year-old Carlo   Giuliani, which occurred while he was taking part in an anti-globalisation demonstration in connection with the G8 summit held in Genoa in 2001.   Giuliano Giuliani, his wife Adelaide Gaggio and their daughter Elena Giuliani are Italian nationals who were born in 1938, 1944 and 1972 respectively and live in Genoa and Milan (Italy).   In the context of the G8 summit held in Genoa, from 19 to 21 July 2001, numerous anti ‑ globalisation demonstrations were held in the city and substantial security arrangements were put in place by the Italian authorities, including deployment of the armed forces.   On 20 July an authorised demonstration involving large numbers of participants gave rise to violent clashes between demonstrators and the security forces. At around 5 p.m. a group of about fifty carabinieri withdrew in disorderly fashion near Piazza Alimonda, with the result that two jeeps which had been bringing up the rear were left isolated.   Following a driver error, one of the vehicles, with three carabinieri inside, remained on Piazza Alimonda, unable to move. Objects, mainly stones, were then thrown at the jeep and some demonstrators ran towards it. One of the carabinieri , panicking, seized his weapon, which he pointed outside the vehicle, shouted to the crowd to leave and then fired two shots. Carlo, who had just picked up a fire extinguisher, was a few metres away from the jeep; the first bullet hit him just below the eye and he fell to the ground. In an attempt to move the jeep out, the driver reversed over Carlo’s body; he then engaged first gear and drove over him again. When the demonstrators had been dispersed a doctor arrived at the scene and pronounced Carlo dead.   An investigation was opened immediately by the Italian authorities, in the course of which statements were taken from the three carabinieri in the jeep and evidence was heard from other carabinieri and from some of the demonstrators. Criminal proceedings were instituted against the officer who had fired the shots and the driver of the jeep for intentional homicide. The autopsy performed on Carlo’s body within 24 hours of his death revealed that the bullet impact to his head had been sufficient to cause death within a few minutes, whereas the jeep’s driving over his body had resulted only in minor injuries. The forensic expert found that the shot had been fired at a downward angle.   At the public prosecutor’s request three expert reports were prepared; the authors of the third report, submitted in June 2002, first deplored the fact that they had been unable to examine Carlo’s body. They concluded that the bullet had been fired upwards by the officer but had been deflected by a stone thrown at the jeep by another demonstrator, with the result that it had struck Carlo. In their estimation, Carlo had been about 1.75 metres from the jeep when the shot had been fired, and the officer firing the shot had therefore been able to see him.   On 5 May 2003 the investigating judge discontinued the proceedings. She held that the driver of the jeep, whose actions had resulted only in bruising, could not be held responsible for the killing as he had been unable to see Carlo, given the confusion prevailing around the vehicle. As to the officer who had fired the fatal shot, the judge took the view that he had fired into the air but that the bullet had been deflected by a stone, causing it to strike Carlo. In the judge’s view, the carabiniere had made legitimate use of his weapon and had acted in self ‑ defence in response to a violent attack on the jeep.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants allege that Carlo’s death was caused by excessive use of force and that the organisation of the operations to maintain and restore public order was inadequate. In addition, they argue that the failure to lend immediate assistance to Carlo amounts to a violation of Articles 2 and 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment).   The applicants further complain that there was no effective investigation, particularly as no evidence was taken from certain witnesses or from the senior police officers concerned. They also contend that one of the experts appointed by the public prosecutor’s office, the person who put forward the theory of the bullet having been “deflected by a stone”, published an article shortly before his appointment in which he supported the self-defence argument. Finally, despite the fact that the investigation concerned two carabinieri , several investigative measures were entrusted to the carabinieri . The applicants rely on Articles 2, 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).     Wednesday 6 December 2006   Grand Chamber         9 a.m.   Folgerø and Others v. Norway (no. 15472/02)     The applicants, all members of the Norwegian Humanist Association ( Human-Etisk Forbund ), are parents whose children were at primary school at the time of the events complained of. They are: Ingebjørg Folgerø (1960), Geir Tyberø (1956), Gro Larsen (1966), Arne Nytræ (1963) and Carolyn Midsem (1953).   In the autumn of 1997 the Norwegian primary school curriculum was changed, with two separate subjects – Christianity and philosophy of life – being replaced by a single subject covering Christianity, religion and philosophy, known as KRL ( kristendomskunnskap med religions- og livssynsorientering ). Under the previous system, parents had been able to apply for their child to be exempted from Christianity lessons; however, it was only possible to request exemption from certain parts of KRL .   KRL was to cover: the Bible, Christianity as cultural heritage, the Evangelical Lutheran Faith (the official State religion in Norway, of which 86% of the population are members), other Christian faiths, other world religions and philosophies, ethics and philosophy. It was also designed to promote understanding and respect for Christian and humanist values and to   promote understanding, respect and dialogue between people with different beliefs and convictions.   During the school year 1999-2000, KRL was introduced at all levels in schools.   The Norwegian Humanist Association was one of a number of associations representing people with minority views which objected to the KRL syllabus, in particular the emphasis placed on Evangelical Lutheran Christianity.   The applicants and other parents made unsuccessful requests to have their children entirely exempted from KRL . On 14 March 1998 they brought unsuccessful proceedings before Oslo City Court, complaining that their exemption requests had been turned down. They claimed, among other things, that the refusal violated their rights and their children's rights under Article 9 (freedom of conscience) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education), as well as Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The 1998 Education Act, which entered into force on 1 August 1999, provided that: “a pupil shall, on the submission of a written parental note, be granted exemption from those parts of the teaching in the particular school concerned that they, from the point of view of their own religion or philosophy of life, consider as amounting to the practising of another religion or adherence to another philosophy of life”.   On 25 March 2002, four sets of parents (not including the applicants) lodged a communication with the United Nations Human Rights Committee under the Protocol to the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Committee found, in the complainants’ case, that KRL , with its rules on exemptions, violated the Covenant.   The applicants complain that the refusal to grant full exemption from KRL prevented them from ensuring their children received an education in conformity with their religious and philosophical convictions. They also complain that they were required to describe in detail the parts of the course which conflicted with their convictions, which Christian parents were not required to do, and which risked stigmatising their children or placing them in a difficult position. They rely on Article   9, Article   2 of Protocol No. 1, Article 8 (right to respect for private life) and Article 14.   The case was allocated to the Grand Chamber [1] at the Court’s request.     Wednesday 13 December 2006   Grand Chamber   9 a.m.   Lindon and Otchakovsky-Laurens v. France (no. 21279/02)     July v. France (no. 36448/02)   The applicants, Mathieu Lindon, Paul Otchakovsky-Laurens and Serge July, are French nationals who were born in 1955, 1944 and 1949 respectively and live in Paris. Mr Lindon is a writer, Mr Otchakovsky-Laurens is the chairman of the board of directors of the publishing company P.O.L., and Mr July was the publication director of the daily newspaper Libération .   In August 1998 P.O.L. published a novel by Mr Lindon with the title Le Procès de Jean ‑ Marie Le Pen (“Jean-Marie Le Pen on Trial”). The novel recounts the trial of a Front National militant, who, while putting up posters for his party with other militants, committed the cold-blooded murder of a young man of North African descent and has admitted that it was a racist crime. He is defended by a Jewish, left-wing and homosexual lawyer. The novel is based on real events and in particular the murders, in 1995, of Brahim Bouaram, a young Moroccan who was thrown into the Seine by skinheads during a Front National march, and of Ibrahim Ali, a young Frenchman of Comorian origin who was killed in Marseilles by militants of the same party. The novel raises questions about the responsibility of Mr Le Pen, Chairman of the Front National, in murders committed by militants, and about the effectiveness of strategies to combat the far right.   The Front National and Mr Le Pen, complaining of defamation on account of remarks in the novel, brought proceedings against the writer and his publisher in Paris Criminal Court. The court found that the offence of defamation was made out in respect of four passages from the offending book, in which it was written that Mr Le Pen headed a group of killers, that the Front National used violence against anyone who left the party, that behind each of Mr   Le   Pen’s assertions “loomed the spectre of the worst abominations of the history of mankind”, that he was a “vampire” who thrived on the “bitterness of his electorate” and on the “blood of his enemies”, and that he was a liar who used defamation against his opponents to deflect accusations away from himself.   On 11 October 1999 the court convicted Mr Otchakovsky-Laurens of defamation and Mr   Lindon of complicity in that offence, and sentenced each of them to pay a fine equivalent to EUR   2,286.74 euros, further ordering them, jointly and severally, to pay EUR   3,811.23 in damages to Mr Le Pen and to the Front National.   In a judgment of 13 September 2000, on an appeal lodged by Mr Lindon and Mr   Otchakovsky-Laurens, Paris Court of Appeal upheld their convictions in respect of three out of the four passages in question. On 27 November 2001 a further appeal on points of law was dismissed by the Court of Cassation.   In its edition of 16 November 1999 the newspaper Libération published an article in the form of a petition signed by 97 writers to protest about the conviction of Mr Lindon and Mr   Otchakovsky-Laurens on charges of defamation and complicity in defamation against Mr   Le Pen.   Mr July was summoned by the Front National and Mr Le Pen to appear before Paris Criminal Court, which, in a judgment of 7 September 2000, found him guilty of defamation and sentenced him to pay a fine equivalent to EUR 2,286.74, together with EUR   3,811.23 in damages, for having reproduced the passages from the novel that had been found to constitute defamation and on account of which the other two applicants had been convicted.   Mr July’s conviction was upheld by Paris Court of Appeal on 21 March 2001. On 3 April 2002 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal he had lodged on points of law.   The applicants complain that their criminal convictions have entailed a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention. Mr July also complains, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), that he was not heard by an independent court, as two out of the three judges on the bench of the Paris Court of Appeal which ruled on his case had also sat on the bench which upheld the other applicants’ conviction of defamation and complicity in defamation.   The cases were allocated to the Grand Chamber [2] at the Court’s request.   ***   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] Article 30 of the Convention: “Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or the protocols thereto, or where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court, the Chamber may, at any time before it has rendered its judgment, relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, unless one of the parties to the case objects”. [2] Article 30 of the Convention: “Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or the protocols thereto, or where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court, the Chamber may, at any time before it has rendered its judgment, relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, unless one of the parties to the case objects”.