CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 10 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   16 10.1.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING DICKSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today 10 January 2007 at 9 a.m., in the case of Dickson v. the United Kingdom (application no.   44362/04).   The applicants   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).   Summary of the facts   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.   Complaints   The applicants complain about the refusal of access to artificial insemination facilities, relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 12 (right to marry and found a family) of the Convention.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23 November 2004.   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 [1] at the applicants’ request.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Nicolas Bratza (British), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian) Karel Jungwiert (Czech), John Hedigan (Irish), András Baka (Hungarian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), judges , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), substitute judges , and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .         Representatives of the parties   Government :   John Grainger , Agent ,   David Perry , Counsel ,   Andrew Dodsworth , Adviser ;   Applicants :   Elkan   Abrahamson , Solicitor ,   Flo Krause, Counsel .   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.   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.