CEDH · PRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG — 14 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 } .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 } .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 } .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   112 14.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CASE ACCEPTED FOR REFERRAL TO THE GRAND CHAMBER   The case Paladi v. Moldova (application no. 39806/05) has been referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights.   Judgments in a further 17 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   Paladi v. Moldova The applicant, Ion Paladi, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1949 and lives in Chişinău. He was Head of the Architecture and Planning Department of the Municipal Council of Chişinău. He has a second-degree disability.   On 24 September 2004 Mr Paladi was remanded on custody in the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (CFECC) on suspicion of abuse of position and power. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that during his detention, which was allegedly unlawful, he was not given appropriate medical assistance, he was not transferred to a neurological institution despite the recommendations of a doctor and his neurological treatment was interrupted. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), Article   5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 34 (right of individual petition) of the Convention.   In a judgment of 10   July 2007, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 as regards the lack of proper medical assistance at the CFECC remand centre, the incomplete treatment at the prison hospital after 20   May 2005 and the abrupt termination of Mr   Paladi’s hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and a violation of Article   5 §   1 on account of his detention pending trial after 22   October 2004, when the court order for his detention had expired, had not been based on any legal provision. By six votes to one, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 34.   On 31 January 2008, the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.   2. Cases rejected by the Grand Chamber   Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria (no.   62540/00), judgment of 28 June 2007.   Testa v. Croatia (no. 20877/04), judgment of 12 July 2007.   FC Mretebi v. Georgia (no. 38736/04), judgment of 31 July 2007.   Cruz de Carvalho v. Portugal (no. 18223/04), judgment of 10 July 2007.   Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia (no. 68007/01), judgment of 5 July 2007. Bitiyeva and X v. Russia (nos. 57953/00 and 37392/03), judgment of 21 June 2007. Garabayev v. Russia (no. 38411/02), judgment of 7 June 2007. Igor Ivanov v. Russia (no. 34000/02), judgment of 7 June 2007. Kantyrev v. Russia (no. 37213/02), judgment of 21 June 2007. Kondrashina v. Russia (no. 69533/01), judgment of 19 July 2007. Kozeyev v. Russia (no. 934/03), judgment of 31 July 2007. Kumkin and Others v. Russia (no. 73294/01), judgment of 5 July 2007. Melnikova v. Russia (no. 24552/02), judgment of 21 June 2007. Parolov v. Russia (no.44543/04), judgment of 14 June 2007. Timishev v. Russia (No. 3) (no. 18465/05), judgment of 14 June 2007.   Kanala v. Slovakia (no. 57239/00), judgment of 10 July 2007.   Satilmiş and Others v. Turkey (nos. 74611/01, 26876/02 and 27628/02), judgment of 17   July 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) 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] 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.