CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 11 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CED24E9 { width:27.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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   495 11.7.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING SAADI v. ITALY   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today Wednesday 11 July 2007 at 9 a.m. ( local time), in the Human Rights building, Strasbourg, in the case of Saadi v. Italy (application no. 37201/06).   The hearing will be broadcast from 2.30 p.m. on the Court’s Internet site http://www.echr.coe.int .     The applicant   The case concerns an application brought by a Tunisian national, Nassim Saadi who was born in 1974 and lives in Milan (Italy). He and his partner, an Italian national, have a seven-year-old child.   Summary of the facts   The application concerns the possible deportation of the applicant to Tunisia, where he claims to have been sentenced in 2005, in his absence, to twenty years’ imprisonment for membership of a terrorist organisation acting abroad in peacetime and for incitement to terrorism.   In December 2001 the applicant was issued with an Italian residence permit, valid until October 2002, “for family reasons”.   In October 2002 Mr Saadi, who was suspected, among other things, of international terrorism, was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention. He was accused of conspiracy to commit acts of violence (including attacks with explosive devices) in States other than Italy with the intention of arousing widespread terror; he was also accused of falsifying documents and receiving stolen goods.   According to the applicant, on 9 May 2005 the Milan Assize Court reclassified the offence of international terrorism, amending it to criminal conspiracy. It found Mr Saadi guilty of that offence and of forgery and receiving, and sentenced him to four years and six months’ imprisonment. It acquitted the applicant of aiding and abetting clandestine immigration. Both the prosecution and the applicant appealed. The proceedings are currently pending before the Italian courts.   On 11 May 2005 a military court in Tunis sentenced the applicant in his absence to twenty years’ imprisonment for membership of a terrorist organisation acting abroad in peacetime and for incitement to terrorism.   Mr Saadi was released on 4 August 2006. On 8 August 2006, however, the Minister of the Interior ordered him to be deported to Tunisia, applying the provisions of the Law of 27 July 2005 on “urgent measures to combat international terrorism”. The Minister observed that “it was apparent from the documents in the file” that the applicant had played an “active role” in an organisation responsible for providing logistical and financial support to persons belonging to fundamentalist Islamist cells in Italy and abroad. The applicant was therefore placed in the Milan temporary holding centre pending his deportation.   Mr Saadi made a request for political asylum which was rejected on 14 September 2006. On the same day he lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights. Under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (interim measures), the Court asked the Italian Government to stay the applicant’s expulsion until further notice.   The maximum time allowed for the applicant’s detention with a view to expulsion expired on 7 October 2006 and he was released on that date. However, on 6 October 2006 a new deportation order had been issued against him, this time to France (the country from which he had arrived in Italy), with the result that he was immediately taken back to the Milan temporary holding centre. The applicant applied for a residence permit and requested refugee status, without success.   On 3 November 2006 the applicant was released, as fresh information made it clear that it would not be possible to deport him to France.   On 29 May 2007 the Italian embassy in Tunis requested the Tunisian Government to provide a copy of the alleged judgment convicting the applicant in Tunisia, as well as diplomatic assurances that, if the applicant were to be deported to Tunisia, he would not be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, that he would have the right to have the proceedings reopened and that he would receive a fair trial.   Complaints   The applicant alleges that enforcement of his deportation to Tunisia would expose him to the risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), he complains that the proceedings in Tunisia were unfair, as he was tried in his absence and by a military court. Under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant alleges that his deportation to Tunisia would deprive his partner and his son of his presence and support. Lastly, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens), the applicant complains that his expulsion is neither necessary to protect public order nor grounded on reasons of national security.   Procedure   The application was lodged on 14 September 2006. On 29 March 2007 the Chamber to which the case 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 , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Nicolas Bratza (British), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian) Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), judges , Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Ján Šikuta (Slovak), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), substitute judges , and also Vincent Berger , Jurisconsult .   Representatives of the parties   Italian Government :   Nicola Lettieri , Co-agent ,   Emilia Mazzuco , Antonio Bella , Claudio Galzerano , Advisers ;   Applicant :   Sandro Clementi , Counsel .   British Government (Third Party) :   Derek Walton , Agent ,   Jonathon Swift , Counsel ,   Stephen Braviner-Roman , Edward Adams , Amy Fitzgerald ,   Anna Jackson , Advisers ;   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private [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) 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. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.