CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 12 septembre 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 } .sB8B6885B { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; font-weight:bold; color:#305592 } .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 } .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   591 12.9.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING BURDEN AND BURDEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today Wednesday, 12   September 2007 at 9 a.m., in the Human Rights building, Strasbourg, in the case of Burden and Burden v. the United Kingdom (application no. 13378/05).   The hearing will be broadcast from 2.30 p.m. on the Court’s Internet site http://www.echr.coe.int .     The applicants   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).   Summary of the facts   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 285,000 pounds sterling (GBP) (420,844 euros (EUR)) 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.   Complaints   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 European Convention on Human Rights, taken in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 29 March 2005. A hearing on the admissibility and merits took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 12 September 2006.   In its Chamber judgment of 12 December 2006 (press release no. 777), the Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   On 8 March 2007 the applicants requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 [1] (referral to the Grand Chamber) and on 23 May 2007 the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted that request.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Nicolas Bratza (British), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Nina Vajić (Croatian) Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), András Baka (Hungarian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), judges , Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Päivi Hirvelä (Finnish), Rait Maruste (Estonian), substitute judges , and also Vincent Berger , Jurisconsult .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Helen Mulvein , Agent ,   Jonathan Crow , Counsel ,   James Couchman , Kirsty Innes , Stephen Gocke , Rob Linham , Advisers ;   Applicants :   David Pannick , Sam Grodzinski , Counsel ,   Elizabeth Gedye , Emma Stradling , Advisers .     ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date [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) 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 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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.