CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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   108 14.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT HADRI-VIONNET v. SWITZERLAND   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Hadri-Vionnet v. Switzerland (application no. 55525/00).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 3,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant is an Algerian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Lignon in the canton of Geneva (Switzerland).   The case concerned the fact that the applicant was unable to attend the funeral of her stillborn baby and that her baby’s body was transported in an ordinary delivery van.   Mrs Hadri-Vionnet arrived in Switzerland on 10 June 1996 and claimed political asylum. On 4 April 1997 she gave birth to a stillborn baby while in a hostel for asylum seekers in the municipality of Buchs. She was in a state of shock. When she and the child’s father were asked by the midwife, they said that they did not wish to see the baby’s body. After an autopsy had been performed, the body was taken in a delivery van to the cemetery for burial in a communal grave for stillborn babies. The burial took place without a ceremony and without the parents being present. The social worker and the registrar based their decision in particular on the fact that the parents had not expressed a wish to see the body before the autopsy and took the view that, given her state of mind, the applicant was not fit to attend the burial.   Against that background the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the two municipal officials concerned. The criminal proceedings, in which the applicant participated as a civil party seeking damages, were discontinued by the public prosecutor’s office of the canton of Aargau. The appeals lodged by the applicant before the Canton of Aargau Higher Court were declared inadmissible on the ground that the constituent elements of the offence relating to disturbing the peace of the dead had not been made out, as no intent had been established. With regard to the transport of the body, the Higher Court accepted that the registrar had been in breach of the road traffic regulations since no authorisation had been obtained, but considered that the fault committed by the official, who had little experience in such matters, had to be put in perspective, as did the actual effects of his conduct. The Federal Court dismissed the appeals lodged by the applicant.   In a decision of 23 March 1998 Buchs Municipal Council authorised the exhumation of the body. The body was exhumed on 20 May 1998, transferred to the applicant’s new home in Geneva and buried following a Catholic ceremony.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 7 December 1999 and declared admissible on 2 May 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Danish), President , Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Mark Villiger (Swiss) [2] , Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   The applicant complained that the body of her stillborn baby was taken away from her and buried without her knowledge in a communal grave and that the child’s body was taken to the cemetery in an inappropriate vehicle. She relied on Article 8.   Decision of the Court   Article 8   The Court found that Article 8 was applicable to the question of whether the applicant had been entitled to attend her child’s burial, possibly accompanied by a ceremony, and to have the child’s body transported in an appropriate vehicle.   The Court stressed that it in no sense wished to cast doubt on the good faith of the official responsible for the particularly delicate task of ordering the transport and burial of the child’s body, bearing in mind that the applicant had been in a state of shock and that it had been necessary to act quite quickly.   That being said, the Court reiterated that the fact that a civil servant was acquitted on criminal charges did not necessarily release the State concerned from its obligations under the Convention. The absence of intent or bad faith on the part of the municipal officials responsible did not in any sense absolve Switzerland from its own international responsibilities under the Convention. The Court therefore considered that the burial and the transport of the body amounted to interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private and family life.   Concerning whether the interference had been “in accordance with the law”, the Court detected at the outset a contradiction between the legislation, which was clear, and the practice followed in the applicant’s case. The Court noted that the registrar had conducted the burial without consulting the relatives, although the regulations governing the cemetery and funerals in the municipality of Buchs required that they be consulted. In addition, the regulations stated that the burial should be organised by the relatives.   Concerning the transport of the child’s remains, the Court pointed out that the Canton of Aargau Higher Court had accepted – and the Federal Court had not disputed the finding – that the body had been transported in breach of the road traffic regulations since no authorisation had been obtained.   Accordingly, the Court held that there had been no legal basis for the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private and family life, in breach of Article 8.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   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 43 of the Convention, 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] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.