CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 13 juin 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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   411 13.6.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING EL MAJJAOUI & STICHTING TOUBA MOSKEE v. THE NETHERLANDS   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today Wednesday 13 June 2007 at 9 a.m. in the Human Rights building, Strasbourg, in the case of El Majjaoui & Stichting Touba Moskee v. the Netherlands (application no. 25525/03).   The applicants   The case concerns an application brought by Lamaiz El Majjaoui, a Moroccan national, born in 1965 who lived in Flushing (the Netherlands) at the relevant time; and, Stichting Touba Moskee, a foundation based in Flushing, which runs a Mosque catering for Muslim believers belonging to the local Moroccan ethnic community.   Summary of the facts   On 2 December 1999 Stichting Touba Moskee applied for a work permit (tewerkstellingsvergunning) to allow it to appoint Mr El Majjaoui as its imam.   On 30 October 2000 the General Directors of the Employment Services Authority turned down the application on the ground that it had to be assumed that there was already an adequate supply of priority candidates (European Union or European Economic Area nationals, or others with equivalent status as regards residence and the right to work, possessing the requisite qualifications) since insufficient efforts had been made to fill the position from that priority group, for example, by advertising the position in the local and national press. In addition, it had not been shown that Mr El Majjaoui would earn the statutory minimum wage.   Mr El Majjaoui lodged an objection on 29 November 2000, stating, among other things, that rules about the minimum wage did not apply to him and that there was a dearth of imams in the Netherlands. His objection was rejected on 19 September 2001.   He and Stichting Touba Moskee then appealed to the Regional Court of The Hague on 16 October 2001. They claimed that, among other things, efforts to find a suitable imam through the Labour Exchange (Arbeidsbureau) had failed and, given the unreasonable length of time taken up by the pending proceedings (by that time, nearly two years) and in the absence of any other candidate for the position, Mr El Majjaoui had started work as the imam at the mosque and everyone was satisfied with his performance. It was also argued that the decision of 19 September 2001 violated Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicants’ case and subsequent appeal were rejected.   Complaints   The applicants complain about the refusal to give Mr El Majjaoui a work permit, relying on Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18 August 2003 and declared admissible on 14 February 2006.   On 7 December 2006 the Chamber to which the cases had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article 30 [1] of the Convention   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French ), President , Ch ristos Rozakis (Greek), Nicolas Bratza (British), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian) Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Judges , Riza Türmen (Turkish), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), Substitute Judges , and also Vincent Berger , Jurisconsult .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Jolien Schukking , Agent,   Neeltje Hoogstrate, Liesbeth Van Amersfoort , Advisers ;   Applicants :   Friso Reinier Heijstek , Counsel ,   Michiel Krijger , Adviser .   Mr El Majjaoui, the applicant , and Fikri Bouzambou and Mohamed Bouzambou - an employee and the Chairman of the applicant Company respectively - will also attend the hearing.     ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   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.