CEDH · PRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG — 6 juillet 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32B93E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s1E59FF54 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:10pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s35F1F2CB { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:10pt } .s995BFA6B { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   488 06.07.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CASES ACCEPTED FOR REFERRAL TO THE GRAND CHAMBER   The following three cases have been referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights:   Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia (application nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99); Demir and Beykara v. Turkey (no. 34503/97); Burden and Burden v. United Kingdom (no. 13378/05).   Judgments in a further 35 cases, listed at the end of the press release, are now final, after requests for them to be referred to the Court’s Grand Chamber were rejected. The Grand Chamber panel of five judges decided on the referral requests under Article 43 [1] of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The text of the Chamber judgment and corresponding press release in each case are available on the Court’s Internet site: www.echr.coe.int.     1. Cases accepted by the Grand Chamber   Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia The case concerns three Croatian nationals. Ivo Kovačić (now deceased) was born in 1922 and lived in Zagreb. Marjan Mrkonjić was born in 1941 and lives in Zurich. Dolores Golubović (now deceased) was born in 1922 and lived in Karlovac (Croatia). The Court accepted that the applications of Mr Kovačić and Ms Golubović could be pursued by their heirs. Before the dissolution of the SFRY in 1991, the applicants or their relatives all deposited hard foreign currencies in savings accounts with the office of a Slovenian bank – the Ljubljana Bank ( Ljubljanska banka ) – in Zagreb (Croatia). Funds in hard foreign currencies deposited with commercial banks in the SFRY were in general transferred to the National Bank of Yugoslavia in Belgrade in accordance with the legislation applicable at the time. Accounts in hard foreign currency were guaranteed by the SFRY. Owing to the monetary crisis, withdrawal of hard foreign currency from such so-called “old savings accounts” was progressively restricted by legislation enacted during the 1980s and the early 1990s. Since then the applicants or their relatives had generally been unable to gain access to the money in their accounts. Since Slovenia and Croatia became independent in 1991, Croatia has taken the view that it is either the Ljubljana Bank or the Slovenian State which should meet the liabilities owed to customers of the Croatian branch. However, Slovenia considers that those liabilities should be divided under the succession arrangements among the five States formed from the dissolved SFRY. The total amount of savings in strong foreign currencies deposited with the Croatian branch of the Slovenian bank has been estimated at approximately 150,000,000 euros (EUR) with accrued interest, and 140,000 investors appear to be involved. On 29 June 2001 in Vienna the successor States signed the Agreement on Succession Issues; it entered into force on 2 June 2004. In 2003, after a change of legislation in Croatia, 42 individuals, including Mr Kovačić and Mr Mrkonjić, lodged requests for the seizure and sale of real estate owned by the Ljubljana Bank in Croatia. In the course of those proceedings, the Zagreb Main Branch’s assets were liquidated. As a result, Mr Kovačić was awarded DEM 49,794.30 (EUR 25,459.42) plus interest and Mr Mrkonjić was awarded 180,515.72 Croatian kunas (EUR 24,728). Both were awarded costs for the enforcement proceedings. They lodged an appeal against that decision in respect of the court fees. On 8 April 2005 Osijek Court of First Instance issued a new decision on the division of the proceeds of sale. Mr Kovačić and Mr Mrkonjić lodged an appeal against that decision. On 7 July 2005 Osijek Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. On 20 July 2005 Mr Kovačić and Mr Mrkonjić received payment of their foreign-currency deposits in full.   The applicants complained that they had not been able to withdraw foreign currency, which they had deposited before the dissolution of the SFRY, from the Ljubljana Bank – Zagreb   Main Branch. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to property). They claimed that the Ljubljana Bank or Slovenia, as a successor State which had assumed the SFRY’s guarantee obligations for foreign-currency savings on the break-up of Yugoslavia, should repay them the money deposited with accrued interest.   Mr Kovačić also complained that he had been discriminated against on the grounds of nationality, in that Slovenian account holders of the Zagreb branch had been allowed to withdraw their savings. He relied on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   In a judgment of 6 November 2006, (see press release no. 667), the Court unanimously decided to strike out the case on the grounds that two of the applicants had received payment in full of their foreign currency deposits and that it was still open to the third applicant to bring proceedings in Croatia.   The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request.   Burden and Burden v. United Kingdom The case concerns two British nationals, J.M. and S.D. Burden, who were born in 1918 and 1925 respectively. They are unmarried sisters and live in Marlborough (United Kingdom).   The applicants have lived together all their lives; for the last 30 years in a house built on land they inherited from their parents. Each sister has made a will leaving all her property to the other sister.   The sisters, both in their eighties, are concerned that, when one of them dies, the other will be forced to sell the house to pay inheritance tax. Under the 1984 Inheritance Tax Act, inheritance tax is charged at 40% on the value of a person’s property. That rate applies to any amount in excess of GBP   285,000 (EUR   420,844) for transfers during the tax year 2006-2007 and GBP   300,000 (EUR   442,994) for 2007-2008.   Property passing from the deceased to his or her spouse or “civil partner” (a category introduced under the 2004 Civil Partnership Act for same-sex couples, which does not cover family members living together) is currently exempt from charge.   The applicants complained that, when one of them died, the survivor would face a heavy inheritance tax bill, unlike the survivor of a marriage or a civil partnership. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 14.   In a judgment of 12 December 2006 (see press release no. 777), the Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicants’ request.   Demir and Beykara v. Turkey The case concerns two Turkish nationals, Kemal Demir and Vicdan Baykara, who were born in 1951 in 1958 respectively. Mr. Demir lives in Gaziantep and Ms Baykara in İstanbul. At the material time, Ms Baykara was the general secretary of the Tüm Bel Sen trade union and Mr   Demir a member.   The case concerned a finding by the Court of Cassation that Tüm Bel Sen had no separate legal personality and the consequent cancellation of a collective bargaining agreement it had entered into with the Gaziantep Town Council.   Tüm Bel Sen was founded in 1990 by civil servants from various localities, with the object of promoting democratic trade unionism to serve the aspirations and needs of its members.   In 1993 it entered into a collective bargaining agreement with Gaziantep Town Council regulating all aspects of working conditions at the council, including salaries, benefits and welfare services. It later sued the council on the ground that it had defaulted on its obligations, in particular, those of a financial nature. It won the case at first instance.   However, on 6 December 1995 the Court of Cassation ruled that at the time Tum Bel Sen was founded, Turkish law did not permit civil servants to form unions and that it could not rely on the relevant international treaties as they were not yet applicable in Turkish law. It therefore concluded that Tum Bel Sen did not have legal personality or the capacity to enter into a collective bargaining agreement.   Following an audit of the town council’s accounts by the Audit Court, the State asked the members of Tum Bel Sen to reimburse the additional revenue they had received under the defunct collective bargaining agreement.   The applicants complained under Articles 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) that the Turkish courts had denied them the right to form a trade union and to enter into a collective bargaining agreement.   In a judgment of 21 November 2006 (see press release no. 717), the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.     2. Cases rejected by the Grand Chamber   Hauser-Sporn v. Austria (no. 37301/03), judgment of 7 December 2006   Kunić v. Croatia (no. 22344/02), judgment of 11 January 2007   Aubert and Others v. France (nos. 31501/03, 31870/03, 13045/04, 13076/04, 14838/04, 17558/04, 30488/04, 45576/04 and 20389/05), judgment of 9 January 2007 Farhi v. France (no. 17070/05), judgment of 16 January 2007   Alsayed Allaham v. Greece (no. 25771/03), judgment of 18 January 2007 Gorou v. Greece (No. 4) (no. 9747/04), judgment of 11 January 2007 N.T. Giannousis & Kliafas Brothers S. A. v. Greece (no. 2898/03), judgment of 14 December 2006   Puzinas c. Lituanie (63767/00), judgment of 9 January 2007   Oferta Plus SRL v. Moldova (no. 14385/04), judgment of 19 December 2006 Pruneanu v. Moldova (no. 6888/03), judgment of 16 January 2007   Salah Sheekh v. Netherlands (no. 1948/04), judgment of 11 January 2007   Golik v. Poland (no. 13893/02), judgment of 28 November 2006   Klimentyev v. Russia (no. 46503/99), judgment of 16 November 2006 Sheydayev v. Russia (no. 65859/01), judgment of 7 December 2006   Dóbal v. Slovakia (no. 65422/01), judgment of 12 December 2006 Preložnik v. Slovakia (no. 54330/00), judgment of 12 December 2006   Lesar v. Slovenia (no. 66824/01), judgment of 30 November 2006 Žehelj v. Slovenia (no. 67447/01), judgment of 21 December 2006 Sedmak v. Slovenia (no. 77522/01), judgment of 18 January 2007   Wassdahl v. Sweden (no. 36619/03), judgment of 6 February 2007   Ahmet Mete v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 30465/02), judgment of 12 December 2006 Akkan and Erkizilkaya v. Turkey (no. 48055/99), judgment of 24 October 2006 Anter and Others v. Turkey (no. 55983/00), judgment of 19 December 2006 Huylu v. Turkey (no. 52955/99), judgment of 16 November 2006 N. A and Others v. Turkey (no. 37451/97), judgment of 9   January 2007 Namli and Others v. Turkey (no. 51963/99), judgment of 5 December 2006 Paşa and Erkan Erol v. Turkey (no. 51358/99), judgment of 12 December 2006 Tuncay v. Turkey (no. 1250/02), judgment of 12 December 2006 Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey (no. 46347/99), judgment of 7 December 2006   Intersplav v. Ukraine (no. 803/02), judgment of 9 January 2007 Kozachek v. Ukraine (no. 29508/04), judgment of 7 December 2006 Ldokova v. Ukraine (no. 17133/04), judgment of 21 December 2006 Mas v. Ukraine (no. 11931/02), judgment of 11 January 2007 Ogurtsova v. Ukraine (no. 12803/02), judgment of 1 February 2007 Yuriy Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40132/02), judgment of 14 December 2006     ***   Further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site: www.echr.coe.int . [2]   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] 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. [2] These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court.