CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG — 5 janvier 2007

.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 } .sF6C3BEA1 { width:7.1pt; display:inline-block } .sCD3585DE { width:49.6pt; display:inline-block } .s269356BC { width:271.29pt; display:inline-block } .sC052AE2B { width:6pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sBF11BE31 { width:22.68pt; display:inline-block } .s6E304CA0 { width:157.25pt; display:inline-block } .s927213E0 { width:20.64pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s25968D11 { width:330.24pt; display:inline-block } .s3F08B7AD { width:1.98pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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   02 5.1.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARINGS IN JANUARY   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding the following hearings in January 2007 :   Tuesday 9 January 2007   Chamber         Hearing on the merits 9.30 a.m.   Urbárska Obec Trenčianske Biskupice v. Slovakia (application no. 74258/01)   The applicant is a community of land owners in Trenčín (Slovakia), called Urbárska obec – pozemkové spoločenstvo Trenčianske Biskupice.   The community owned land in the agglomeration of Trenčín, part of which had been used by the gardeners’ association “Váh” in Zlatovce. The applicants submitted that the rent which the gardeners were obliged to pay had been lower than the property tax payable in respect of that land.   On 22 July 1998 the individual gardeners who used the land of the applicant community brought proceedings under Act 64/1997 to have ownership of the land transferred to them. Act 64/1997, which took effect on 26 March 1997, gave users of the land the right to acquire ownership of it. Owners were given the right to claim either different land or pecuniary compensation. Their options for terminating leases were limited by the Act.   On 24 September 1999 Trenčín District Office granted the request to have ownership of the land transferred to the gardeners, and Trenčín Regional Office upheld that decision on 24   November   1999.   The gardeners paid the required sum for the land to the Slovak Land Fund. The applicant community of land owners received 1.4097 hectares of different land in compensation on 1 October 2002.   On 17 May 2005 Trenčín District Land Office, at the Slovakian Government’s request, issued a document summing up the position as regards the land in question. According to the document, the garden association Váh in Zlatovce was established on wasteland which had been a municipal dump. The surface area of the land which fell under Act 64/1997 amounted to 2.5711 hectares. The surface area of the land which the community of land owners had received in compensation was smaller as it was arable land of high quality and its value was therefore higher. The document further indicated that, in the proceedings under Act 64/1997, the value of the disputed land was taken into account as of the date when the gardener’s association had been established. The value of the land which the owners received in compensation was also established according to the relevant regulations.   In August 2005, at the Government’s request, an expert valued the land being used (and now owned) by the gardeners’ association at 1,166.40 Slovak korunas (SKK) per square metre and the land which the community of land owners had received in compensation at SKK 110.16 per square metre.   The applicant community complains about being obliged to lease its land at a disproportionately low price and the subsequent transfer of the land to the tenants. The applicant community relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   Wednesday 10 January 2007   Grand Chamber [1]   9 a.m.   Dickson v. United Kingdom (no. 44362/04)     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 complain 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 noted that the Secretary of State had given careful consideration to the applicants’ circumstances, including the unlikely event of the couple being able to conceive after Mr   Dickson’s release from prison, before concluding that those factors were outweighed by the other factors. Particular reference was given to the nature and gravity of Mr Dickson’s crime and the welfare of any child who might be conceived, in the light of the prolonged absence of the father for an important part of her or his childhood years and the apparent lack of sufficient material provision and of an immediate support network for the mother and child. The Court further noted that the decision of the Secretary of State was examined by the High Court and the Court of Appeal which found the decision to refuse the facilities was neither unreasonable nor disproportionate.   In view of those circumstances, the Chamber found that 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 the 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 Chamber 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.     Tuesday 16 January 2007   Chamber   2.30 p.m.   Gebremedhin v. France (no. 25389/05)     Asebeha Gebremehdin is an Eritrean national aged 27 (born on 25 March 1979) who lives in Paris, France, where he obtained refugee status in 2005.   In 1998, like many other individuals, the applicant and his family were displaced from Ethiopia to Eritrea, where the applicant worked as a reporter and photographer for the independent newspaper Keste Debena , whose editor was at that time the journalist Milkias Mihretab. Both men were arrested in 2000, apparently on account of their professional activities. Mr Mihretab was imprisoned for eight months and the applicant for six months.   In September 2001 Mr Mihretab fled the country. The applicant, who was arrested and interrogated about his journalist friend, is said to have been tortured. He was imprisoned for six months and managed to abscond from the prison hospital, where he had been transferred after contracting tuberculosis.   After spending some time in Sudan, the applicant, without any identity documents, arrived at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris on 29 June 2005, according to his version of events with which the French Government disagree. On 1 July 2005 he applied for leave to enter France on grounds of asylum. On 5 July 2005 the OFPRA (French authority for the protection of refugees and stateless persons) issued the opinion that the applicant should not be admitted to France on account of inconsistencies in his claims. The following day, the Ministry of the Interior dismissed his application and gave directions for his removal “to Eritrea, or if need be to any country where he may be legally admissible”. An appeal by the applicant against that decision was dismissed, on 8 July 2005, by the urgent applications judge of the Cergy-Pontoise Administrative Court.   The applicant lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights, which indicated to the French Government, on 15 July 2005, pursuant to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that it was desirable not to remove him to Eritrea prior to the forthcoming meeting of the appropriate Chamber. On 20 July 2005 the French authorities granted him leave to enter France and then issued him with a temporary residence permit.   On 7 November 2005 the OFPRA granted the applicant refugee status.   The applicant complains, under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), that under French law there is no remedy with suspensive effect against decisions refusing leave to enter or directing removal. He further complains, under Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), that he was unlawfully deprived of liberty while he was held in the international zone, from 29 June to 1 July 2005, and subsequently in the waiting area until 20   July 2005.     Wednesday 17 January 2007   Grand Chamber   9 a.m.   D.H. and Others v. Czech Republic (no. 57325/00)   The applicants are 18 Czech nationals of Roma origin who were born between 1985 and 1991 and live in the Ostrava region (Czech Republic).   Between 1996 and 1999 they were placed in special schools (zvláštní školy) for children with learning difficulties unable to follow the ordinary school curriculum. By law, the decision to place a child in a special school is taken by the head teacher on the basis of the results of tests to measure the child’s intellectual capacity carried out in an educational psychology and child guidance centre, and requires the consent of the child’s legal representative.   Fourteen of the applicants sought a review by Ostrava Education Department (školský úřad) on the grounds that the tests performed had been unreliable and that their parents had not been sufficiently informed of the consequences of giving consent. The Education Department found that the placements had been made in accordance with the statutory rules.   In addition, 12 of the applicants appealed to the Constitutional Court. They argued that their placement in special schools amounted to a general practice that created segregation and racial discrimination through the coexistence of two autonomous educational systems, namely special schools for the Roma and “normal” primary schools for the majority of the population. That appeal was dismissed on 20 October 1999.   The applicants complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education), taken alone and together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) that they had suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their right to education on account of their Roma origin.   In its Chamber judgment of 7 February 2006 (press release no. 64, 2006), the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.   The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicants’ request.     Thursday 18 January 2007   Chamber     Hearing on the merits 9 a.m.     Wagner and (One) Other v. Luxembourg (no. 76240/01) The applicants, Jeanne Wagner, a Luxembourg national aged 39 (born on 31 August 1967), and her adopted daughter J.M., born in Peru in 1993, both live in Luxembourg.   Pursuant to a Peruvian judgment of 6 November 1996, Mrs Wagner adopted a three-year-old Peruvian girl who had been declared abandoned.   In 1997 the applicants brought a civil action to have the Peruvian judgment declared enforceable in Luxembourg for purposes, in particular, of the child’s civil registration and acquisition of Luxembourg nationality.   On 2 June 1999 the District Court dismissed the applicants’ application for an order to enforce the Peruvian adoption judgment on the ground that it was contrary to Article 367 of the Civil Code whereby full adoption was not available to a single woman. The applicants appealed, claiming principally that the first-instance judgment was at odds with Article 8 (right to respect for family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicants’ appeal was declared unfounded on 6 July 2000 and a further appeal on points of law was dismissed by the Court of Cassation on 14 June 2001.   The applicants also brought administrative proceedings following the refusal by the Minister for the Family, Social Solidarity and Youth to take the necessary measures to ensure that the full adoption was recognised by the Luxembourg authorities. Their action was upheld at first instance but was dismissed by the higher Administrative Court on 1 July 2004, ruling on an appeal by the Ministry.   The applicants complain, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing), that they have been deprived of a fair hearing because the Luxembourg civil courts failed to examine their argument based on a violation of Article 8. They further complain, relying on Article 8, of the failure by the Luxembourg authorities to recognise the family relationship created between them by the judgment of full adoption delivered in Peru. Lastly, relying on Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination), in conjunction with Article 8, the applicants consider that the child has suffered from unjustified discrimination on account of the refusal to recognise the full adoption.     Wednesday 24 January 2007   Grand Chamber   9 a.m.                 Kafkaris v. Cyprus (no. 21906/04)   The applicant, Panayiotis Agapiou Panayi, alias Kafkaris, is a Cypriot national, who was born in 1946. He is currently serving a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment in Nicosia Central Prison.   On 9 March 1989 the applicant was found guilty by Limassol Assize Court on three counts of premeditated murder under the Criminal Code (Cap. 154). The next day he   was sentenced to life imprisonment on each count. The applicant had planted and detonated a bomb in a car, killing its passengers, a man and his two young children, aged 11 and 13.   During the hearing before the assize court concerning the sentencing of the applicant, the prosecution invited the court to examine the meaning of the term “life imprisonment” in the Criminal Code and, in particular, to clarify whether it entailed imprisonment of the convicted person for the rest of his life or just for a period of 20 years, as provided by the Prison (General) Regulations of 1981 and the Prison (General) (Amending) Regulations of 1987 (the Regulations), adopted under section 4 of the Prison Discipline Law (Cap 286).   The assize court held that the term “life imprisonment” used in the Criminal Code meant imprisonment for the remainder of the life of the convicted person and therefore did not consider it necessary to examine whether the sentences it imposed would run concurrently or consecutively.   On the day on which the applicant was admitted to prison, he was given written notice by the prison authorities that the date set for his release was 16 July 2002, subject to his good conduct and industry during detention. After committing a disciplinary offence, his release was postponed to 2 November 2002.   The applicant appealed against his conviction, which was dismissed on 21 May 1990 by the Supreme Court.   On 9 October 1992 the Supreme Court declared the Regulations in question to be unconstitutional and ultra vires and, on 3 May 1996, the Prison Law of 1996 (Law 62(I)/96) was enacted, repealing and replacing the Prison Discipline Law.   The applicant was not released on 2 November 2002.   Consequently, on 8 January 2004 he submitted a habeas corpus application to the Supreme Court challenging the lawfulness of his detention, which was dismissed. He appealed unsuccessfully.   The applicant complains about his life sentence and continuing detention. In particular, he complains that his mandatory life sentence amounted to an irreducible term of imprisonment, that his continuous detention beyond the date set for his release by the prison authorities was unlawful and that it had left him in a prolonged state of distress and uncertainty over his future. He also claims that, as a result of the repeal of the Regulations, the amendment of the relevant legislative provisions and their retroactive application, he has been subjected to an unforeseeable prolongation of his term of imprisonment from a definite 20-year sentence to an indeterminate term for the remainder of his life.   He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 7 (no punishment without law). He further complains under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in that, while most other inmates serving life sentences have been released having served their 20-year sentence, he remains the longest serving life prisoner and, also, that, as a life prisoner, he is now excluded from the possibility of any remission to his sentence under section 12 of the Prison Law of 1996.   The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Chamber’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] 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.