CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG — 6 février 2008

.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 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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   85 6.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARINGS 13-28 FEBRUARY 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding the following three hearings between 13 and 28 February 2008:     Wednesday 13 February 2008: 9 a.m.   Grand Chamber   Salduz v. Turkey (no. 36391/02)   The applicant, Yusuf Salduz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1984 and lives in Izmir (Turkey).   The case concerns the lack of legal assistance available to the applicant while in police custody and the fact that he did not have access to the public prosecutor’s submissions to the Court of Cassation.   On 29 May 2001, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having participated in an illegal demonstration in support of the imprisoned leader of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party, an illegal organisation). He was also accused of hanging an illegal placard on a bridge.   On 30 May 2001 a police statement was taken from the applicant in which he admitted the charges. The applicant subsequently denied the content of his police statement, alleging that it had been extracted from him under duress. The same day, the investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody.   On 5 December 2001 Izmir State Security Court convicted the applicant of aiding and abetting the PKK, under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Section 5 of Law no. 3713 and sentenced him to four years and six months' imprisonment. His sentence was later reduced to two-and-a-half years' imprisonment as he was under 18 at the time of the offence.   On 27 March 2002 the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written opinion calling for the judgment to be upheld and, on 10 June 2002, the Court of Cassation confirmed the judgment.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr   Salduz complains about the unfairness of proceedings against him, namely that the public prosecutor’s submissions were not communicated to him and that he was denied the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody.   In its Chamber judgment of 26 April 2007, 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 1,000 euros (EUR) 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 [1] .   Wednesday 27 February 2008: 9 a.m.   Grand Chamber   S. and Michael Marper v. the United Kingdom (nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04)   The applicants S. and Michael Marper, were born in 1989 and 1963. They are both British nationals who live in Sheffield, United Kingdom.   The case concerns the decision to continue storing fingerprints and DNA samples taken from the applicants after unsuccessful criminal proceedings against them were closed.   On 19 January 2001 S. was arrested and charged with attempted robbery. His fingerprints and DNA samples were taken. He was acquitted on 14 June 2001. Mr Marper was arrested on 13 March 2001, charged with harassing his partner. His fingerprints and DNA samples were also taken. The charges were dropped following reconciliation with his partner and the case against him was discontinued, also on 14 June 2001.   Both applicants unsuccessfully requested that their fingerprints and DNA samples be destroyed.   The applicants both complain about the retention of their fingerprints and DNA samples and the fact that they are being used in ongoing criminal investigations. They are also concerned about the possible future uses of those samples and, in general, that their retention casts suspicion on people who have been acquitted or discharged of crimes. They further contend that, as people without convictions who are no longer suspected criminals, they should be treated in the same way as the rest of the unconvicted population of the United Kingdom. They rely on Articles 8 (right to respect for private life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.   The Chamber to which the case was assigned decided to relinquish jurisdiction to the Grand Chamber on 10 July 2007 [2] . Thursday 28 February 2008: 9 a.m.   Chamber hearing on the merits   S.H. and Others v. Austria (no. 57813/00)   The four applicants, all Austrian nationals, are: S. H. and D. H., who are married and live in L. (Austria); and, H. E.-G., and M. G., who are also married and live in R. (Austria).   S.H. suffers from fallopian tube-related infertility (eileiterbedingter Sterilität). D.H. is also infertile. H. E.-G. suffers from agonadism (Gonadendysgenesie), which means that she does not produce ova and is completely infertile, although she has a fully developed uterus. M. G. can produce sperm fit for procreation.   On 4 May 1998 S. H and H. E.-G. filed a request (Individualantrag) with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) applying for a review of the constitutionality of section 3 §§ 1 and 2 of the Artificial Procreation Act (Fortpflanzungsmedizingesetz). Under section 3 § 1 of the act, only ova and sperm from spouses or from those living in a relationship similar to marriage (Lebensgefährten) can be used for medically-assisted procreation. The only exception, under section 3 § 2, is that sperm from a third person can be used for artificial insemination when introducing sperm into the reproductive organs of a woman. In all other circumstances, and in particular for the purpose of in vitro fertilisation, the use of sperm by donors is prohibited [3] .   S.H. argued that the only means of conception open to her and her husband would be in vitro fertilisation using sperm from a donor. H. E.-G. submitted that she would have to resort to a medical technique known as heterologous embryotransfer, which would entail implanting into her uterus an embryo conceived with ova from a donor and sperm from M.G.. They argued that the prohibition of those two heterologous artificial procreation techniques for in vitro fertilisation under the Artificial Procreation Act was a breach of their rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention. They also relied on Article 12 (right to found a family) of the Convention and on Article 7 of the Austrian Federal Constitution, which guarantees equal treatment.   On 14 October 1999 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ case. They found that there was an interference with Article 8, but that it was justified on the ground that the aim was to avoid the forming of unusual personal relations such as a child having more than one biological mother (a genetic mother and one carrying the child) and to avoid the risk of exploitation of women.   The applicants complain about the prohibition of heterologous artificial procreation techniques for in vitro fertilisation, relying on Articles 8 and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.     ***   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ). [4]   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] Under Article 30 of the Convention, 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] As far as can be seen the same situation as in Austria exists under Swedish and Norwegian law and, although not easy to compare, under German law. Donation of sperm is prohibited in Italy, Lithuania, and Turkey, and ovum donation in a larger number of European countries, namely Croatia, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey.   [4] These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court.