CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 30 avril 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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CED24E9 { width:27.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .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   310 30.4.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING LEGER v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today Wednesday 30 April 2008 at 9 a.m. , in the case of Léger v. France (application no.   19324/02).   The hearing will be broadcast from 2.30 p.m. on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     The applicant   Lucien Léger is a 71-year-old French national who lives in Laon (France).   Summary of the facts   In July 1964 he was arrested and charged with the abduction and murder of Luc   Taron, an 11-year-old boy. He made a confession while in police custody but retracted it several months later. He has protested his innocence ever since.   In a judgment of 7   May 1966, Seine-et-Oise Assize Court found the applicant guilty of the offences charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He made unsuccessful applications in 1971 and 1974 for a retrial.   He became eligible for parole on 5   July 1979 after 15 years in prison. Between 1985 and 1998 Mr   Léger made numerous applications for release, all of which were refused. In addition, he made several unsuccessful applications for a presidential pardon.   In 1999 he again requested his release on licence. Despite a favourable opinion by the Sentence Enforcement Board, his request was turned down by the Minister of Justice.   In January 2001 the applicant made a further application for release. He submitted that friends had offered to accommodate him on his release in an outbuilding at their home and to give him work in their bakery. The Sentence Enforcement Board issued a unanimous opinion in favour of his release on licence and the applicant’s probation and rehabilitation officer also strongly recommended that he be released.   Despite that, Douai Regional Parole Court rejected the request on 6   July 2001 on the grounds that the applicant continued to deny that he had committed the offence of which he had been convicted, that the experts could not exclude the possibility that he was still dangerous and might re-offend and would not be able to do so unless he underwent a course of psychiatric treatment, and that, as the applicant had no intention of following such a programme, it was not clear that he was making “serious efforts to ensure his social rehabilitation”. That decision was upheld on appeal on 23   November 2001 by the National Parole Court on the grounds that the applicant’s planned rehabilitation had been put in doubt by the intervening bankruptcy of the person who had offered to put him up and give him work and that he was unwilling to seek counselling even though he presented paranoid tendencies.   In January 2005 the applicant again submitted a request for his release on licence, which the prison authorities supported but which was opposed by the public prosecutor, who pleaded in particular the risk that he might re-offend. The court responsible for the execution of sentence ruled that his conduct no longer stood in the way of his release and that the risk of his re-offending had dwindled almost to nothing. It accordingly granted him release on licence.   Consequently, Mr   Léger was released on licence on 3   October 2005, after spending more than 41   years in prison.   Complaints   The applicant complains that his continued detention had become arbitrary, particularly after the refusal of his 2001 application for release on licence. He also submits that in practice it was tantamount to a whole-life sentence and therefore constituted inhuman and degrading treatment. He relies on Article   5 §   1   (a) (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the Convention.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6   May 2002 and declared partly admissible on 21   September 2004.   A hearing was held in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 26   April 2005.   In its Chamber judgment of 11   April 2006, the Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article   5 §   1   (a) and no violation of Article   3.   On 7   July 2006 the applicant requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article   43 [1] (referral to the Grand Chamber) and on 13   September 2006 the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted that request .   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Jean-Paul Costa (French), Nicolas Bratza (British), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Nina Vajić (Croatian) Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Renate Jaeger (German), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), Ján Šikuta (Slovak), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), Mark Villiger (Swiss) [2] , Luis López Guerra (Spanish), Ledi Bianku (Albanian), judges , Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Rait Maruste (Estonian), substitute judges , and also Erik Fribergh , Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Anne-Françoise Tissier , Counsel ,   Marie Mongin-Heuzé , Richard Dubant , Alexandra Salisse , Marie-Aude Recher , Advisers ;   Applicant :   Jean-Jacques de Felice , Counsel ,   Hugues de Suremain , Béatrice Belda , Advisers .   Lucien Léger will also attend the hearing.   *** After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date [3] .   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) 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 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] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.