CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   82 5.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   12 February 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding a public hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on Tuesday 12 February 2008 to deliver its Grand Chamber judgments in the following cases:   Kafkaris v. Cyprus (application no.   21906/04), at 9.30 a.m. (local time); and Guja v. Moldova (application no.   14277/04), at 10 a.m. (local time).   The press release and the texts of the judgments will be available after the hearing on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Kafkaris v. Cyprus   The case concerns an application brought by Panayiotis Agapiou Panayi, alias Kafkaris, a Cypriot national, who was born in 1946. He is currently serving a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment in Nicosia Central Prison.   On 9   March 1989 the applicant was found guilty by Limassol Assize Court on three counts of premeditated murder under the Criminal Code (Cap.   154). The next day he was sentenced to life imprisonment on each count. The applicant had planted and detonated a bomb in a car, killing its passengers, a man and his two young children, aged   11 and   13.   During the hearing before the assize court concerning the sentencing of the applicant, the prosecution invited the court to examine the meaning of the term “life imprisonment” in the Criminal Code and, in particular, to clarify whether it entailed imprisonment of the convicted person for the rest of his life or just for a period of 20   years, as provided by the Prison (General) Regulations of   1981 and the Prison (General) (Amending) Regulations of   1987 (the Regulations), adopted under section   4 of the Prison Discipline Law (Cap   286).   The assize court held that the term “life imprisonment” used in the Criminal Code meant imprisonment for the remainder of the life of the convicted person and therefore did not consider it necessary to examine whether the sentences it imposed would run concurrently or consecutively.   On the day on which the applicant was admitted to prison, he was given written notice by the prison authorities that the date set for his release was 16   July 2002, subject to his good conduct and industry during detention. After committing a disciplinary offence, his release was postponed to 2   November 2002.   The applicant appealed against his conviction, which was dismissed on 21   May 1990 by the Supreme Court.   On 9   October 1992 the Supreme Court declared the Regulations in question to be unconstitutional and ultra vires and, on 3   May 1996, the Prison Law of   1996 (Law   62(I)/96) was enacted, repealing and replacing the Prison Discipline Law.   The applicant was not released on 2 November 2002.   Consequently, on 8   January 2004 he submitted a habeas corpus application to the Supreme Court challenging the lawfulness of his detention, which was dismissed. He appealed unsuccessfully.   The applicant complains about his life sentence and continuing detention. In particular, he complains that his mandatory life sentence amounted to an irreducible term of imprisonment, that his continuous detention beyond the date set for his release by the prison authorities was unlawful and that it had left him in a prolonged state of distress and uncertainty over his future. He also claims that, as a result of the repeal of the Regulations, the amendment of the relevant legislative provisions and their retroactive application, he has been subjected to an unforeseeable prolongation of his term of imprisonment from a definite 20-year sentence to an indeterminate term for the remainder of his life.   He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), Article   5 (right to liberty and security) and Article   7 (no punishment without law) of the European Convention on Human Rights. He further complains under Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention in that, while most other inmates serving life sentences have been released having served their 20-year sentence, he remains the longest serving life prisoner and, also, that, as a life prisoner, he is now excluded from the possibility of any remission to his sentence under section   12 of the Prison Law of   1996.   The Chamber to which the case was allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article   30 [1] .     Guja v. Moldova   The case concerns an application brought by Iacob   Guja who was born in 1970 and lives in Chişinău. He was Head of the Press Department of the Moldovan Prosecutor General’s Office.   The case concerns his dismissal for giving a newspaper two letters received by the Prosecutor General’s Office.   In January   2003 the President of Moldova visited the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption where there was a discussion of the problem of public officials placing pressure on law-enforcement bodies relating to pending criminal proceedings. The President stressed the need to fight corruption and called on law enforcement officers to disregard undue pressure from public officials. The President’s statement was reported in the media.   A few days later the applicant gave the national newspaper Jurnal de Chişinău two letters received by the Prosecutor General’s Office, neither of which bore any sign of being confidential.   The first – sent to the Prosecutor General by the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Mr   V.   Mişin, on 21   June 2002 – was written on the Parliament’s official headed paper. It asked the Prosecutor General to “get personally involved in the case” of four police officers charged with illegal detention and ill-treatment of detainees. Mr   Mişin stated that the police officers, who had asked for protection from prosecution, were part of one of the “best teams” in the Ministry of Internal Affairs (the Ministry) and were being prevented from working normally "as a result of the efforts of   the employees   of   the   Prosecutor General's   Office".   He also   asked in that context whether the "Vice Prosecutor General fights crime or the police".   The second letter – from Mr   A.   Ursachi, a Vice-Minister in the Ministry, to a deputy prosecutor general – was written on official Ministry headed paper. It revealed that one of the police officers mentioned in the first letter   had   previously been   sentenced only to a fine (which he was exempted from paying) and that he had been re-employed by the Ministry, despite being convicted, among other things, of illegal detention endangering life or health or causing physical suffering and abuse of power accompanied by acts of violence, use of firearm or torture.   On 31   January 2003 Jurnal de Chişinău published an article entitled: “Vadim   Mişin intimidates the prosecutors” describing the President’s anti-corruption drive and noting that abuse of power had become a widespread problem in Moldova. The paper cited Mr   Mişin’s apparent attempts to protect the four police officers as an example, printing photographs of the two letters.   The applicant was subsequently asked by the Prosecutor General to explain how the two letters had come to be published by the press. On 14   February 2003 the applicant admitted having given the two letters to the newspaper, stating that he had acted in line with the President’s anti-corruption drive, in order to create a positive image of the Prosecutor’s Office, and that the letters were not confidential.   Prosecutor   I.D., who was suspected of having given the applicant the letters, was later dismissed.   On 17 February 2003 the applicant informed the Prosecutor General that the letters had not been obtained from I.D. He also expressed concern about I.D.’s dismissal.   On 3   March 2003 the applicant was dismissed on the grounds, among other things, that the letters had been secret and that he had failed to consult the heads of other departments of the Prosecutor General’s Office before handing over the letters, in breach of the press department’s internal regulations.   On 21   March 2003 the applicant brought an unsuccessful civil action against the Prosecutor General’s Office seeking reinstatement, arguing, among other things, that the letters were not classified as secret in accordance with the law and that he had not been obliged to consult other heads of department.   The applicant complains about his dismissal, relying on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   10.   The Chamber to which the case was allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article   30 of the Convention [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) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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] 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. [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.