CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG — 7 mai 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sAD6484C1 { width:269.26pt; display:inline-block } .sF6C3BEA1 { width:7.1pt; display:inline-block } .sCD3585DE { width:49.6pt; display:inline-block } .sE33C80B4 { width:394.65pt; display:inline-block } .sA13B701E { width:167.29pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   330 7.5.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARINGS IN MAY   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding the following three hearings in May 2008 :     Tuesday 13 May: 9 a.m.   Chamber hearing on admissibility and the merits   Medvedyev and Others v. France (application no. 3394/03)   The applicants are Oleksandr Medvedyev and Borys Bilenikin, Ukrainian nationals, Nicolae Balaban, Puiu Dodica, Nicu Stelian Manolache and Viorel Petcu, Romanian nationals, Georgios Boreas, a Greek national, and Sergio Cabrera Leon and Guillermo Luis Eduar Sage Martinez, Chilean nationals.   They were crew members on a merchant ship named the Winner, flying the Cambodian flag. As part of the international effort to combat drug trafficking, the French authorities were informed that the ship might be carrying large quantities of drugs. By diplomatic telegram dated 7 June 2002, the French embassy in Phnom Penh informed the Ministry of Defence in Paris that the Cambodian Government had agreed to the French authorities intercepting the Winner .   On 13 June 2002 the French frigate sent to intercept the freighter spotted a merchant ship travelling at slow speed through the waters off Cape Verde. It was not flying a flag, but was identified as the Winner . During the interception operation the freighter manoeuvred to avoid the frigate while the crew jettisoned packages over the stern into the sea. One of those packages was later found to contain 80 to 100 kg of cocaine.   Only after a number of shots had been fired – first warning shots then shots over its bow – did the Winner stop. A commando team boarded the ship and took control of it by force. The crew were confined to their quarters under military guard. A tug was sent out from Brest on instructions from the French authorities to tow the Winner into Brest harbour.   An investigation was opened by the Brest public prosecutor on 13 June 2002. It emerged that the Greek coastguard had had the Winner under observation in connection with international drug trafficking in which Greek nationals were involved.   On 26 June 2002 the Winner entered Brest harbour under escort. The cargo was handed over to the police and the crew were remanded in custody.   On 28 June 2002 the applicants Viorel Petcu, Puiu Dodica, Nicolae Balaban and Nicu Stelian Manolache were charged with leading a group with the aim of producing, manufacturing, importing, exporting, transporting, possessing, supplying, selling, acquiring or illegally using drugs, and conspiring to import and export drugs illegally. They were placed in detention pending trial. On 29   June 2002 the applicants Oleksandr Medvedyev, Borys Bilenikin, Georgios Boreas, Sergio Cabrera Leon and Guillermo Luis Eduar Sage Martinez and two other crew members were also charged and placed in detention.   They appealed for the evidence to be disallowed, complaining that the Winner had been arrested illegally and that their detention on board for 13 days had also been illegal. In a final judgment of 15 January 2003 the Court of Cassation dismissed their appeal, explaining that “Cambodia, the flag State, [had] expressly and unreservedly authorised the French authorities to arrest the Winner and that, in keeping with Article 17 of the Vienna Convention [1] , only the proper measures [had been] taken in respect of the persons on board, who [had been] lawfully remanded in custody as soon as they landed on French soil”.     In May 2005 the Ille-et-Vilaine special Assize Court found the applicants Georgios Boreas, Guillermo Sage Martinez and Sergio Cabrera Leon guilty of conspiring to import drugs illegally and sentenced them respectively to 20, ten and three years’ imprisonment. It acquitted the remaining applicants of the charges against them.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicants allege that they were the victims of arbitrary deprivation of liberty. They submit that they were held prisoner on the Winner for 13 days under French military guard without any judicial authority supervising their detention, and that they were therefore not brought “promptly” before a judge. They also complained that the legal basis for their deprivation of liberty was unclear.   Wednesday 14 May:   9 a.m.   Grand Chamber [2]   Paladi v. Moldova (no. 39806/05)     The applicant, Ion Paladi, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1953 and lives in Chişinău. He was Deputy Mayor of Chişinău and a university lecturer. In 2006 he was declared as having a second-degree disability.   The case concerns, in particular, Mr Paladi’s complaint that, despite doctors’ recommendations, he was not given appropriate medical care while in detention pending trial.   On 24 September 2004 Mr Paladi was taken into custody on a 30-day detention order and placed in the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (the “CFECC”) on suspicion of abuse of position and power. He stayed there until 25 February 2005 when he was transferred to Remand Centre no. 3 of the Ministry of Justice in Chişinău.   Mr Paladi suffers from a number of serious illnesses (diabetes, angina, heart disease, hypertension, chronic bronchitis, pancreatitis and hepatitis) and, while in detention, was examined by various doctors who all recommended medical supervision. Certain doctors also considered that the applicant should undergo operations, which could only be carried out in specialised units.   According to Mr Paladi, the CFECC had no medical staff until late February 2005. He also claimed that he, his wife and lawyer had complained to the authorities about his insufficient medical treatment, but had only been able to obtain sporadic medical visits and assistance in emergencies.   As a result of a medical report drawn up in March 2005, Mr   Paladi was transferred to a prison hospital where, on 20 May 2005, a neurologist from the Republican Neurology Centre of the Ministry of Health (the “RNC”) recommended hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy. The director of the hospital informed the domestic courts a total of seven times between May and September 2005 that the HBO therapy had not been carried out because his hospital did not have the necessary equipment for such specialised neurological treatment.   In September 2005 a medical board of the Ministry of Health examined Mr Paladi and, at their recommendation, Centru District Court ordered his transfer to the RNC. Mr Paladi received HBO therapy, which produced positive results, at the Republican Clinical Hospital (the “RCH”) and that hospital prescribed a continuation of the therapy until 28 November. In the meantime, however, the RNC had written a letter on 9 November stating that Mr Paladi’s condition had stabilised and recommending his release from hospital. No reference having been made to HBO therapy in that letter, on 10 November the district court ordered the applicant’s transfer back to the prison hospital.   On the evening of 10 November the European Court of Human Rights indicated by facsimile to the Moldovan Government an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, stating that the applicant should not be transferred from the RNC until the Court had had the opportunity to examine the case. On 11 November 2005 a Deputy Section Registrar of the Court tried to contact by telephone the Government Agent’s Office in Moldova, without success. The same day Mr   Paladi was transferred to the prison hospital. Finally, following requests by the applicant’s lawyer and the Agent of the Government, the district court ordered the applicant to be transferred back to the RNC on 14 November. The applicant alleged, corroborated by a television news report, that he was made to wait six hours before being admitted to the RNC. According to the doctors, that delay was due to the fact that Mr   Paladi had arrived at the RNC without a medical file.   Between 5 October 2004 and 11 October 2005 Mr Paladi made a total of 10 requests to be released, which were all refused, notably because the courts considered that he might reoffend or abscond, tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. On 1 June 2005, the examination of his case was suspended because he was considered to be unfit to attend hearings. Ultimately, on 15 December 2005, Mr Paladi’s detention pending trial was replaced with an obligation not to leave the country. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and 5 (right to liberty and security), Mr Paladi complains about the unlawfulness of his detention pending trial and that, during that time, he was not given appropriate medical care. He also alleges that the authorities failed to comply swiftly with the Court’s interim measures ordered under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in breach of Article 34 (right of individual petition).   In its 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 care provided to the applicant at each stage of his detention. It further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   1 on account of the applicant’s detention pending trial after 22   October 2004, when the court order for his detention had expired. Lastly, the Court held, by six votes to one, that Moldova’s failure to comply as a matter of urgency with the interim measure it had indicated had jeopardised Mr Paladi’s ability to pursue his application, in violation of Article   34.   On 30   January 2008, the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.     Wednesday 21 May:   9 a.m.   Grand Chamber       A. and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 3455/05)     The applicants are 11 individuals: six are of Algerian nationality; four are, respectively, of French, Jordanian, Moroccan and Tunisian nationality; and, one, born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Jordan, is stateless.   The case concerns the applicants’ complaint that they were detained in high security conditions under a statutory scheme which permitted the indefinite detention of non-nationals certified by the Secretary of State as suspected of involvement in terrorism.   All the applicants were allegedly involved in extreme Islamist terrorist groups with links to Al Qa’eda, such as the GSPC (or Salafist Group for Call and Combat) formed in Algeria in 1998, the Tunisia Fighting Group and a group of Algerian extremists centred around Abu Doha, known for his senior role in training camps in Afghanistan and for his connection with the Frankfurt cell accused of plotting to bomb the Strasbourg Christmas market in December 1995. The applicants were notably suspected of supporting those terrorist groups by fundraising for them through credit card fraud, supplying false documents, purchasing telecommunications equipment and helping young Muslims from the United Kingdom to travel to Afghanistan to train for jihad. The Jordanian applicant also had a prior conviction in Jordan for involvement in terrorist attacks and was alleged to be the spiritual advisor to certain people associated with Al Qa’eda. In speeches at a London mosque, he had been reported as having given his blessing to the killing of Jews and Americans, wherever they were.   Following the attacks of 11 September 2001 on the United States of America, the British Government considered that the United Kingdom was a particular target for future attacks. It believed that the threat came principally from a number of foreign nationals present in the United Kingdom, who were providing a support network for Islamist terrorist operations linked to Al’Qaeda, but who could not be deported because there was a risk that each would be ill-treated in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in his country of origin. As a result, on 11 November 2001 the British Secretary of State issued a notice of derogation under Article   15 (derogation in time of emergency) of the European Convention on Human Rights to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe setting out the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (“the 2001 Act”) and relating to the detention of suspected terrorists.   Between February 2002 and October 2003, each applicant was certified under Section 21 of the 2001 Act as an international terrorist and was initially detained at Belmarsh Prison in London. The Moroccan and French applicants were released as they elected to leave the United Kingdom in December 2001 and March 2002, respectively. Three of the applicants, following a deterioration in their mental health (including a suicide attempt), were transferred to Broadmoor Secure Mental Hospital. Another applicant was released on bail in April 2004, under conditions equal to house arrest, because of serious concerns over his mental health.   The Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture, having visited the detainees in February 2002 and March 2004, published a report in which it was critical of the applicants’ conditions of detention in Belmarsh Prison and Broadmoor Hospital and reported allegations of ill-treatment by staff. It noted, in particular, that the applicants were in a poor mental state and that the indefinite nature of their detention exacerbated their disorders. That report was corroborated by a Joint Psychiatric Report drawn up at the request of the applicants’ representatives.   The British Government categorically rejected the suggestion that the applicants were treated in an inhuman or degrading manner at any point during their detention.   In the meantime, the applicants brought proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (“SIAC”) in which they challenged the legality of the November 2001 derogation. On 30 July 2002 SIAC concluded that it was satisfied that Al’Qaeda had created a public emergency threatening the life of the nation, but it also found that, since the detention regime applied only to foreign nationals and permitted UK nationals suspected of terrorism to go free, it was discriminatory and in breach of the European Convention.   The Court of Appeal found that the November 2001 derogation was compatible with the Convention.   In a judgment of 16 December 2004, the House of Lords found by a majority that, although there was an emergency threatening the life of the nation, the detention scheme was a disproportionate response to the threat to national security and permitted discriminatory detention of suspected international terrorists. The House of Lords therefore made a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act and quashed the derogation order.   However the eight applicants still in prison or at Broadmoor remained detained until the 2001 Act was repealed by Parliament in March 2005. As soon as they were released, they were immediately made subject to control orders, a regime which came into effect on 11 March and which imposes various restrictions on those reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorism, regardless of nationality. More recently, the applicants were placed in immigration custody pending removal to Algeria and Jordan. The applicants complain about the psychiatric harm they suffered as result of their detention under the 2001 Act.   They also allege that that detention was unlawful and, in particular, that the relevant legislation only applies to non-UK nationals. Furthermore, although their detention was declared to be in breach of domestic law, they are unable to bring any proceedings in the United Kingdom to claim compensation or bring about their release. Lastly, the applicants complain that they had only limited knowledge of the case against them and a limited possibility to challenge it. The applicants rely on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The Chamber to which the case was assigned decided to relinquish jurisdiction to the Grand Chamber on 11 September 2007.   ***   Decisions, judgments and 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) 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] United Nations Convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, done in Vienna on 20 December 1988 [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.