CEDH · PRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG — 12 octobre 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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   662 8.10.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CASES ACCEPTED FOR REFERRAL TO THE GRAND CHAMBER   The following cases have been referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights:   Salduz v. Turkey (application no. 36391/02); Maslov v. Austria (no. 1638/03).   Judgments in a further 36 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. Cases accepted by the Grand Chamber   Salduz v. Turkey The applicant, Yusuf Salduz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1984 and is living in Izmir (Turkey).   In December 2001 Mr Salduz was convicted for aiding and abetting the PKK and sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment, later reduced to two and a half years’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial), Mr Salduz complained about the unfairness of proceedings against him, namely that the submissions of the Principal Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation had not been communicated to him and that he had been denied the assistance of a lawyer during police custody.   In a judgment of 26 April 2007, (see press release No. 265), the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s written opinion, and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient compensation for any non-pecuniary damage suffered. Mr Salduz was awarded EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses.   The Court further held, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 6 §   3   (c) on account of the lack of legal assistance during police custody.   The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request.   Maslov v. Austria The applicant, Juri Maslov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1984 and who, at the age of six, lawfully entered Austria with his parents and two siblings. He went to school in Austria and speaks German. He currently lives in Bulgaria.   The application concerned the 10-year residence prohibition against Mr Maslov, issued by the Vienna Federal Police Authority, relying on Section 36 §   1 of the 1997 Aliens Act. The prohibition was made following Mr Maslov’s convictions by the Vienna Juvenile Court in September 1999 and then in May 2000. The first conviction was, in particular, for burglary, extortion and assault which resulted in an 18-month prison sentence, 13 months of which were suspended on probation. Mr Maslov was also instructed to start drug therapy. The second conviction was for a series of burglaries resulting in 15   months’ imprisonment. The Juvenile Court considered Mr Maslov’s rapid relapse into crime after his first conviction and his failure to undergo drug withdrawal treatment as aggravating circumstances. That court also noted that, though still living with his parents, he had completely eluded their educational influence, had repeatedly been absent from home and had dropped out of school. Mr Maslov was released from prison in May 2002 and, ultimately, deported to Bulgaria on 22   December 2003.   Mr Maslov relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights reiterated that the residence prohibition had a basis in domestic law and that it “pursued the legitimate aim” of preventing disorder and crime. However, given the nature of the offences which were non-violent and a result of juvenile delinquency, given Mr Maslov’s good conduct following his release from prison the second time and given his lack of ties with his country of origin, the Court found that a ten-year residence prohibition appeared disproportionate to that “legitimate aim”.   In a judgment of 22 March 2007, (see press release No. 168), the Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and awarded the applicant 5,759.96   euros   (EUR) in respect of costs and expenses. It further held that a finding of a violation was in itself just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage.   The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.   2. Cases rejected by the Grand Chamber   Prischl v. Austria (no. 2881/04), judgment of 26 April 2007.   Chadimová v. Czech Republique (no. 50073/99), judgment of 26 April 2007. Patera v. Czech Republique (no. 25326/03), judgment of 26   April 2007.   Huohvanainen v. Finland (no. 57389/00), judgment of 13 March 2007. Väänänen v.Finland (no. 10736/03), judgment of 20 February 2007.   Laudon v. Germany (no. 14635/03), judgment of 26 April 2007. Skugor v. Germany (no. 76680/01), judgment of 10 May 2007.   Konstatinov v. the Netherlands (no. 16351/03), judgment of 26 April 2007.   Andrulewicz v. Poland (no. 43120/05), judgment of 3 April 2007. Bączkowski and Others v. Poland (no. 1543/06), judgment of 3 May 2007. Matyjek v. Poland (no. 38184/03), judgment of 24 April 2007. Tysiąc v. Poland (no. 5410/03), judgment of 20 March 2007. W.S. v. Poland (no. 21508/02), judgment of 19 June 2007. Wende and Kokówka v. Poland (no. 56026/00), judgment of 10 May 2007. Zwierzyński v. Poland (no. 34049/96), judgment (revision) of 6   March 2007.   Aslan v. Romania (no. 32494/03), judgment of 24 May 2007. Durdan v. Romania (no. 6098/03), judgment of 26 April 2007. Păduraru v. Romania (no. 63252/00), judgment (friendly settlement ) of 15 March 2007.   Andrey Frolov v. Russia (no. 205/02), judgment of 29 March 2007. Baysayeva v. Russia (no. 74237/01), judgment of 5 April 2007. Benediktov v. Russia (no. 106/02), judgment of 10 May 2007. Church Scientology Moscow v. Russia (no. 18147/02), judgment of 5 April 2007. Naydenkov v. Russia (no. 43282/02), judgment of 7 June 2007.   Kontrová v. Slovakia (no. 7510/04), judgment of 31 May 2007.   Apostolidi and Others v. Turkey (no. 45628/99), judgment of 27 March 2007. Ilicak v. Turkey (no. 15394/02), judgment of 5 April 2007. Irfan Bayrak v. Turkey (no. 39429/98), judgment of 3 May 2007. Kamil Uzun v. Turkey (no. 37410/97), judgment of 10 May 2007. Mehmet Ali Miçooğullari v. Turkey (no. 75606/01), judgment of 10 May 2007. Taşatan v. Turkey (no. 60580/00), judgment of 10 May 2007. Üçak and Others v. Turkey (nos. 75527/01 and 11837/02), judgment of 26 April 2007. Ulusoy and Others v. Turkey (no. 34797/03), judgment of 3 May 2007.   Pobegaylo v. Ukraine (no. 18368/03), judgment of 29 March 2007. Shevchenko v. Ukraine (no. 8371/02), judgment of 26 April 2007. Shinkarenko v. Ukraine (no. 31105/02), judgment of 7 June 2007. Vasilyev v. Ukraine (no. 11370/02), judgment of 21 June 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.