CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG — 23 août 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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCDD6093F { width:327.99pt; display:inline-block } .sBF11BE31 { width:22.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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   554 23.8.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARINGS IN SEPTEMBER   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding the following hearings in September 2007 :   Tuesday 4 September 2007   Chamber     Hearing on the merits 9 a.m.   The Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia (No. 2) (application no. 9103/04)   The applicant, the Georgian Labour Party, is a political party based in Tbilisi.   On 2 November 2003 a general parliamentary election was held in Georgia, the outcome to be decided according to two voting systems, majority voting and proportional representation. The Georgian Labour Party received 12.04% of the votes cast under proportional representation, which corresponded to 20 of the 150 seats in Parliament reserved for candidates from party lists.   Demonstrators protesting that the elections had been rigged and calling for the resignation of Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze disrupted the newly-elected Parliament’s first session on 22 November 2003 (the so-called “Rose Revolution”). President Shevardnadze resigned and the Supreme Court of Georgia annulled the proportional representation results of the general election. It was subsequently decided to hold a presidential election on 4   January 2004 and a re-run of the parliamentary election was ultimately scheduled for 28   March 2004.   The Central Electoral Commission (CEC) passed a number of decrees in December 2003 requiring voters to go to electoral precincts and fill out special forms in order to vote in the presidential election. The Georgian Labour Party and other opposition parties challenged the lawfulness of those rules in court, but the claim was dismissed. No-one from the Georgian Labour Party stood as a candidate in the presidential election. The applicant party made an unsuccessful request to the Supreme Court to have the election results annulled.   Concerning the parliamentary election, the CEC passed another decree requiring electoral precincts to publish preliminary lists of voters and obliging voters to go there to check that their names were on the lists and make a request for any correction.   According to the applicant, on the eve of the parliamentary election, the new President of Georgia Mikhail Saakashvili told the mass media that he would not allow the Labour Party to be included in the new Parliament. Following various complaints filed with the CEC about voting irregularities in the general election in the Kobuleti and Khulo electoral districts in the Autonomous Republic of Ajaria, the CEC annulled the results for those two districts. The CEC set 18 April 2004 as the date for a new vote. On the day, however, the polling stations in the Khulo and Kobuleti districts failed to open, which deprived around 60,000 people of their vote.   The same day, the CEC announced the results of the 28 March election; 1,498,012 votes had been cast and the applicant party had received 6.01% of the vote, which was not enough to clear the 7% threshold needed to obtain seats in Parliament.   The applicant’s representative, as one of the 15 members of the CEC, had objected to the finalisation of the election results, arguing that the CEC could not lawfully end a national election without first having held an election in the Khulo and Kobuleti districts. The CEC chairperson had replied that the fact that the polling stations had not opened in those districts was the fault of the local authorities. The CEC accepted the election results by a majority vote.   The applicant party appealed unsuccessfully to the Supreme Court. Constitutional proceedings brought by the chairperson of the applicant party were also unsuccessful.   The applicant party complains about the conduct of the parliamentary election on 28   March 2004, relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) of the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, it challenges the system of preliminary voter registration and the rules on the composition of electoral rolls. It also complains that a majority of CEC members were representatives of the ruling political forces and that the CEC took decisions by a majority vote enabling it to ignore the Georgian Labour Party’s numerous protests about electoral irregularities. The applicant party further complains that it was deprived of its chance to win parliamentary seats because the general election results were finalised without a vote having been held in two electoral districts.   Wednesday 12 September 2007   Grand Chamber [1]   9 a.m.   Burden and Burden v. the United Kingdom (no. 13378/05)   The case concerns two British nationals, Joyce and Sybil 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 complain that, when one of them dies, the survivor will face a heavy inheritance tax bill, unlike the survivor of a marriage or a civil partnership. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Thursday 20 September 2007   Chamber   9 a.m.   Kononov v. Latvia (no. 36376/04) Hearing on the admissibility and merits   The applicant, Vasiliy Kononov, was a Latvian national until 12 April 2000, when he was granted Russian nationality. He was born in 1923 and currently lives in Riga.   The case concerns proceedings brought against him for alleged war crimes committed in 1944. At the time the territory of Latvia was under German occupation.   In 1942 the applicant was called up as a soldier in the Soviet Army. In 1943 he was parachuted into Belarus territory (then under German occupation) near the Latvian border, where he joined a Soviet commando unit, composed of members of the “Red Partisans”.   According to the public prosecutor’s office and the Latvian courts, the applicant led a platoon responsible for an attack on the village of Mazie Bati (in the district of Ludza) on 27 May 1944 which led the deaths of six men and three women. Another man was savagely wounded and the women concerned (one nine-months’ pregnant) burnt alive.   According to the applicant, the victims of the attack were collaborators who had delivered a group of partisans (including two women and a small child) into the hands of the Germans. The applicant said that his platoon were supposed to have captured those responsible so that they could be brought to trial. He had not personally led the mission or gone into the village.   In January 1998 the Documentation Centre on the Consequences of Totalitarianism (Totalitārisma seku dokumentēšanas centrs) launched a criminal investigation into the events of 27 May 1944. It considered that the applicant could have committed war crimes under Article 68-3 of the former Criminal Code, as amended by a law of 6 April 1993. Article 68-3 stipulated that those found guilty of war crimes would be liable to between three and 15 years’ imprisonment or life imprisonment. Article 6-1 allowed criminal law to be applied with retrospective effect to war crimes and Article 45-1 provided that no limitation period attached to the prosecution of such crimes. On 2 August 1998 the applicant was charged with war crimes and, on 10 October 1998, placed in pre-trial detention. He appealed unsuccessfully. He also pleaded not guilty.   Riga Regional Court found the applicant guilty under Article 68-3 and imposed an immediate six-year custodial sentence. The court found, among other things, that the applicant was a member of the Soviet Army and therefore a “combatant” within the meaning of the relevant instruments of international humanitarian law. The court concluded that the applicant had perpetrated acts that were prohibited by the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for Nuremberg, the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention.   That judgment was quashed however, on 25 April 2000, on the ground that various points were undecided, including whether Mazie Bati had in fact been within “occupied territory” and whether the applicant and his victims could be classified as “combatants” and “non-combatants” respectively. The applicant was released from detention.   On 17 May 2001 the prosecution again charged the applicant with an offence under Article 68-3.   On 3 October 2003 the applicant was acquitted of war crimes, but found guilty of banditry. The court accepted that the deaths of the men from Mazie Bati could be regarded as necessary and justified in military terms, but that there was no justification for the killing of the three women or the burning down of the village buildings. As the commanding officer, the applicant was responsible for the acts committed. However, the time limit for a prosecution for banditry had expired.   The Criminal Affairs Division allowed an appeal from the prosecution and quashed that judgment, again finding the applicant guilty under Article 68-3. Noting that he was aged, infirm and harmless, it imposed an immediate custodial sentence of one year and eight months. Since the applicant had already spent that entire period in pre-trial detention, he was deemed to have served his sentence.   He appealed unsuccessfully on points of law.   The applicant complained about the retrospective application of a criminal statute against him. He further argued that the characterisation of his acts by the Latvian courts was based on an erroneous assumption that Latvia was at the time occupied by the USSR and that he was a representative of the occupation forces. The Hague and Geneva Conventions applied only to “combatants”, and he did not come within that definition at the material time. He also complained about the length and unfairness of his trial and that his detention pending trial from 10 October 1998 to 25 April 2000 amounted to “inhuman and degrading treatment”, given his state of health.   He relied on Article 7 (no punishment without law), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), Article 18 (limitation on use of restriction on rights), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 15 (derogation in time of emergency).   Wednesday 26 September 2007   Grand Chamber [2]   9 a.m.   N. v. the United Kingdom (no. 26565/05)   The applicant, N., is a Ugandan national who was born in 1974 and lives in Clapham (London).   She entered the United Kingdom on 28 March 1998 under an assumed name. She was seriously ill, and was admitted to hospital.   On 31 March 1998 solicitors lodged an asylum application on her behalf, claiming that she had been ill-treated and raped by the National Resistance Movement in Uganda because of her association with the Lord’s Resistance Army, and asserting that she was in fear of her life and safety if she were returned.   By November 1998, the applicant was diagnosed as having two AIDS defining illnesses, and as being extremely advanced from an HIV point of view; her CD4 count was 20 cells/mm³, reflecting considerable immunosuppression. The report stated that, without active treatment, her prognosis was “appalling” and put her life expectancy at less than 12 months should she be forced to return to Uganda, where there was “no prospect of her getting adequate therapy”.   The Secretary of State refused the asylum claim on 28 March 2001, finding that her claims were not credible, that there was no evidence that the Ugandan authorities were interested in the applicant and that treatment of AIDS in Uganda was comparable to any other African country, and all the major anti-viral drugs were available in Uganda at highly subsidised prices. The applicant appealed.   On 10 July 2002 her appeal was dismissed concerning the asylum refusal, but allowed in relation to Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The Secretary of State appealed against the Article 3 finding, contending that all the AIDS drugs available under the National Health Service in the United Kingdom could also be obtained locally in Uganda, and most were also available at a reduced price through UN-funded projects and from bilateral AIDS donor funded programmes. The applicant’s return would not, therefore, be to a “complete absence of medical treatment”, and so would not subject her to “acute physical and mental suffering”. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal on 29 November 2002 and found: “Medical treatment is available in Uganda for the [applicant’s] condition even though the Tribunal accept that the level of medical provision in Uganda falls below that in the United Kingdom.”   The applicant appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.   The applicant maintains that to return her to Uganda would cause her suffering and early death amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment.   She relies on Article 3 of the Convention.     ***   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ). [3]   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) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   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] A first hearing took place on 12 September 2006 (see Press release No. 502) and a Chamber judgment was delivered on 12 December 2006 (see Press release No. 777). The Chamber 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. On 8 March 2007 the applicants requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber (Article 43 of the Convention and Rule 73 of the Rules of Court). The panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on 23 May 2007. [2] 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. [3] These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court.