CEDH · PRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG — 16 juin 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 } .sB15BD35E { color:#b5082e } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .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 } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s854EF1B6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:13.5pt } .s927039E3 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .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   440 16.6.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CASE ACCEPTED FOR REFERRAL TO THE GRAND CHAMBER   The following case has been referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights:   Mooren v.   Germany (application no. 11364/03)   At its last meeting, the Grand Chamber panel of five judges accepted the above case for referral to the Grand Chamber, under Article 43 [1] of the European Convention on Human Rights. The panel also adjourned one case:   Teren Aksakal v. Turkey (no. 51967/99)     Judgments in a further 50 cases, listed at the end of the press release, are now final [2] , after requests for them to be referred to the Grand Chamber were rejected.   The text of the Chamber judgment and corresponding press release   is   available on the Court’s Internet site: http://www. e chr.coe.int.     1. Case accepted by the Grand Chamber   Mooren v.   Germany The applicant, Burghard Theodor Mooren, is a German national who was born in 1963 and was living in Mönchengladbach (Germany) at the time of his application to the Court.   The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention following his arrest in July 2002 on suspicion of tax evasion.   In a judgment of 13   December 2007, (see press release no.   917), the Court held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article   5 §   1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court held unanimously that there had been two violations of Article   5 §   4 of the Convention on account of the lack of speedy review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention and the refusal to grant access to the case files in those review proceedings.   The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request.   The text of the Chamber judgment and corresponding press release is available on the Court’s Internet site: http://www.echr.coe.int.   2. Cases rejected by the Grand Chamber   Driza v. Albania (no. 33771/02), judgment of 13 November 2007 Dybeku v. Albania (no. 41153/06), judgment of 18 December 2007 Ramadhi and Others v. Albania (no. 38222/02), judgment of 13 November 2007   Paykar Yev Haghtanak Ltd. v. Armenia (no. 21638/03), judgment of 20 December 2007   Maslenkovi v.Bulgaria (no. 50954/99), judgment of 8 November 2007   Biondić v. Croatia (no. 38355/05), judgment of 8 November 2007   Josephides v. Cyprus (no. 33761/02), judgment of 6 December 2007     Maumousseau and Washington v. France (no. 39388/05), judgment of 6 December 2007 S.V.I. PLÉLO-CADIOU v. France (no. 12876/04), judgment of 22 November 2007       Oganova v. Georgia (no. 25717/03), judgment of 13 November 2007   Sampsonidis and Others v. Greece (no. 2834/05), judgment of 6 December 2007 Z.A.N.T.E. – Marathonisi A.E. v. Greece (no. 14216/03), judgment of 6   December 2007   Bocellari and Riza v. Italy (no. 399/02), judgment of 13 November 2007 Cresci v. Italy (no. 35783/03), judgment of 13 November 2007     Melegari v. Italy (no. 17712/03), judgment of 13 November 2007   Pasculli v. Italy (no. 36818/97), judgment of 4 December 2007   Perry v. Latvia (no. 30273/03), judgment of 8 November 2007   Popovici v. Moldova (nos. 289/04 and 41194/04), judgment of 27 November 2007 Timpul Info-Magazin and Anghel v. Moldova (no. 42864/05), judgment of 27   November 2007   A.B. v. Poland (no. 33878/96), judgment of 20 November 2007 Luczak v. Poland (no.77782/01), judgment of 27 November 2007 Rydz v. Poland (no. 13167/02), judgment of 18 December 2007   Aleksandrova v. Russia (no. 28965/02), judgment of 6 December 2007 Grishin v. Russia (no. 30983/02), judgment of 15 November 2007 Ismailova v. Russia (no. 37614/02), judgment of 29 November 2007 Khamidov v. Russia (no.72118/01), judgment of 15 November 2007 Khamila Isayeva v. Russia (no. 6846/02), judgment of 15 November 2007 Knyazev v. Russia (no. 25948/05), judgment of 8 November 2007 Kukayev v. Russia (no. 29361/02), judgment of 15 November 2007 Lebedev v. Russia (no. 4493/04), judgment of 25 October 2007 Lind v. Russia (no. 25664/05), judgment of 6 December 2007 Liu and Liu v. Russia (no. 42086/05), judgment of 6 December 2007 OOO PKG «   Sib Yukass   » v. Russia (no. 34283/05), judgment of 8 November 2007 Subocheva v. Russia (no. 2245/05), judgment of15 November 2007 Ustalov v. Russia (no. 24770/04), judgment of 6 December 2007   Urbárska obec Trenčianske Biskupice v. Slovakia (no. 74258/01), judgment of 27   November 2007   Tomažič v. Slovenia (no. 38350/02), judgment of 13 December 2007   Nankov v. «   the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   » (no. 26541/02), judgment of 29   November 2007   Stojkovic v. «   the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   » (no. 14818/02), judgment of 8   November 2007     Erkan Soylu v. Turkey (no. 74657/01), judgment of 18 December 2007 Evcimen v. Turkey (no. 21865/02), judgment of 29 December 2007   K.Ö v. Turkey (no. 71795/01), judgment of 11 December 2007 Köseoğlu v. Turkey (no. 73283/01), judgment of 20 November 2007   Meral v. Turkey (no. 33446/02), judgment of 27 November 2007 Nacaryan and Deryan v. Turkey (nos. 19558/02 and 27904/02), judgment of 8 January 2008 Nur Radyo ve Televiziyon Yayinciliği A. Ş. v. Turkey (no. 6587/03), judgment of 27   November 2007 Nurettin Aldemir and Others v. Turkey (nos. 32124/02, 32126/02, 32129/02, 32132/02, 32133/02, 32137/02 and 32138/02), judgment of 18 December 2007 Özgür Radyo – Ses Radyo Televizyion Yayin Yapim ve Tanitimi A. Ş. v. Turkey (no.   11369/03), judgment of 4 December 2007   Şencan v. Turkey (no. 7436/02), judgment of 13 December 2007       Orel v. Ukraine (no. 39924/02), judgment of 15 November 2007     ***   Further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ). [3]   Press contacts 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] 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. [3] These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court.