CEDH · PRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG — 3 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   542 3.8.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CASE ACCEPTED FOR REFERRAL TO THE GRAND CHAMBER   The following case has been referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights: Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey (application no. 10226/03).   Judgments in a further 31 cases, listed at the end of the press release, are now final [1] , 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 [2] 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: http://www.echr.coe.int.   1. Case accepted by the Grand Chamber   Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey Mehmet Yumak and Resul Sadak are Turkish nationals who were born in 1962 and 1959 respectively and live in Şırnak (Turkey). Mr Yumak is self-employed, while Mr Sadak is Mayor of Idil.   The application concerns Turkish electoral law, according to which a party must obtain at least 10% of the national vote in parliamentary elections in order to win seats in the National Assembly.   In the parliamentary elections of 3 November 2002 the applicants stood as candidates for the political party DEHAP (Democratic People’s Party) in the province of Şırnak.   As a result of the ballot, DEHAP obtained approximately 45.95% of the vote (47,449 votes) in Şırnak province, but did not secure 10% of the vote nationally. The applicants were not elected, in accordance with section 33 of the Election of Members of Parliament Act (Law No. 2939), which states that “parties may not win seats unless they obtain, nationally, more than 10% of the votes validly cast”. Consequently, of the three parliamentary seats allotted to Şırnak province, two were filled by the AKP (Justice and Development Party), which obtained 14.05% of the vote (14,460 votes), and the third by an independent candidate, Mr Tatar, who obtained 9.69% of the vote (9,914 votes). Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (right to free elections), the applicants submitted that setting a threshold of 10% of the vote in parliamentary elections interfered with the free expression of the opinion of the people in their choice of the legislature.   In a judgment of 30 January 2007, (see press release no. 70), the Court held by 5 votes to 2 that there had been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No.   1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (right to free elections).   The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request.   2. Cases rejected by the Grand Chamber   Hesse v. Austria (no. 26186/02), judgment of 25 January 2007   Musa and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 61259/00), judgment of 11 January 2007 Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00 and 194/02), judgment of 15 March 2007   Heglas v. Czech Republic (no. 5935/02), judgment of 1st March 2007   Ouzounian Barret v. Cyprus (no. 2418/05), judgment of 18 January 2007   Arma v. France (no. 23241/04), judgment of 8 March 2007   Kirsten v. Germany (no. 19124/02), judgment of 15 February 2007   Rompoti and Rompotis v. Greece (no. 14263/04), judgment of 25 January 2007 Tsekouridou v. Greece (no. 28770/04), judgment of 25 January 2007     Pepszolg Kft. («   v.a   ») v. Hungary (no. 6690/02), judgment of 27 February 2007   Scordino v. Italy (No. 3) (no. 43662/98), judgment of 6 March 2007   Boczoń v. Pologne (no. 66079/01), judgment of 30 January 2007 Krzych and Gurbiez v. Pologne (no. 35615/03), judgment of 13 February 2007 Ruciński v. Pologne (no. 33198/04), judgment of 20 February 2007 Siałkowska v. Pologne (no. 8932/05), judgment of 22 March 2007 Staroszczyk v. Pologne (no. 59519/00), judgment of 22 March 2007     Nerumberg v. Roumania (no. 2726/02), judgment of 1st February 2007 Gavrileanu v. Roumania (no. 18037/02), judgment of 22 February 2007   Raylyan v. Russia (no. 22000/03), judgment of 15 February 2007 Shlepkin v. Russia (no. 3046/03), judgment of 1st February 2007 Tatishvili v. Russia (no. 1509/02), judgment of 22 February 2007   Verdu Verdu v. Spain (no. 43432/02), judgment of 15 February 2007   Aksakal v. Turkey (no. 37850/97), judgment of 15 February 2007 Asfuroğlu and Others v. Turkey (nos. 36166/02, 36249/02, 36263/02, 36272/02, 36277/02, 36319/02 and 36339/02), judgment of 27 March 2007 Duyum v. Turkey (no. 57963/00), judgment of 27 March 2007 Kadriye Sülun v. Turkey (no. 33158/03), judgment of 6 February 2007 Kutbettin Baran v. Turkey (no. 46777/99), judgment of 23 January 2007 Necip Kendirci and Others v. Turkey (nos. 10582/02, 1441/03 and 7420/03), judgment of 3 April 2007 Oyman v. Turkey (no. 39856/02), judgment of 20 February 2007   Pogrebna v. Ukraine (no. 25476/02), judgment of 15 February 2007 Litvinyuk v. Ukraine (no. 9724/03), judgment of 1st February 2007     ***   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] Under Article 44 § 2 (c) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the judgment of a Chamber shall become final when the panel of the Grand Chamber rejects the request to refer under Article 43. [2] 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. [3] These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court.