CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 14 mars 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; 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 } .s3CED24E9 { width:27.05pt; 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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   168 14.3.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING E.B. v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today 14 March 2007 at 9 a.m. in the case of E.B. v. France (application no. 43546/02).   The applicant   E.B. is a French national aged 45. She is a nursery school teacher and has been living with another woman, R., who is a psychologist, since 1990.   Summary of the facts   The application concerns the refusal by the French authorities to grant the applicant’s request to adopt a child, allegedly on account of her sexual orientation.   In February 1998 the applicant applied to the Jura Social Services Department for authorisation to adopt a child. During the adoption procedure she did not hide her homosexuality or her stable relationship with R.   On the basis of the reports drawn up by a social worker and a psychologist, the commission responsible for examining applications for authorisation to adopt gave a decision in November 1998 rejecting the application. This decision was confirmed by the president of the council for the département of the Jura in March 1999. The reasons given for both decisions were the lack of “identificational points of reference” due to the absence of a paternal image or reference and the ambiguous nature of the applicant’s partner’s commitment to the adoption plan.   The applicant lodged an application with Besançon Administrative Court, which set both decisions aside on 24 February 2000. The département of the Jura appealed against the judgment. Nancy Administrative Court of Appeal set aside the Administrative Court’s judgment on 21 December 2000. It held that the refusal to grant the applicant authorisation had not been based on her choice of lifestyle and had not therefore given rise to a breach of Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The applicant appealed on points of law, arguing in particular that her application to adopt had been rejected on account of her sexual orientation. In a judgment of 5 June 2002, the Conseil d’Etat dismissed E.B.’s appeal on the ground, among other things, that the Administrative Court of Appeal had not based its decision on a position of principle regarding the applicant’s sexual orientation, but had had regard to the needs and interests of an adopted child.     Complaints   The applicant alleged that she was refused authorisation to adopt on account of her sexual orientation and that she was discriminated against on the ground of her homosexuality. She relied on Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 2 December 2002. On 19 September 2006, under Article 30 of the Convention [1] , the Chamber relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.   The FIDH (Fédération Internationale des ligues des Droits de l’Homme), the ILGA-Europe (the European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association), the APGL (Association des Parents et futurs Parents Gays et Lesbiens) and the BAAF (British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering) have been allowed to take part in the proceedings as third parties.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), Judge , Jean-Paul Costa (French), Nicolas Bratza (British), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese) Riza Türmen (Turkish), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), judges , Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), substitute judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Deputy Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Edwige Belliard , Agent ,   Anne-Françoise Tissier , Laure Neliaz , Fabienne Turpin , Marie-Gabrielle Merloz ,   Advisers ;   Applicant :   Caroline Mecary , Counsel,   Robert Wintemute , Hans Ytterberg , Adam Weiss , Advisers .     ***   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] 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.