CEDH · PRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG — 21 avril 2009

.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 } .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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; 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 }   333 21.4.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CASES ACCEPTED FOR REFERRAL TO THE GRAND CHAMBER   The following cases have been referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights:   Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom (application no. 42184/05); Tănase v. Moldova (no. 7/08).   At its last meeting, the Grand Chamber panel of five judges accepted the above cases for referral to the Grand Chamber, under Article 43 [1] of the European Convention on Human Rights. The panel also adjourned the following cases:   Panzari v. Moldova (no. 27516/04).   Judgments in a further 68 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.     1. Cases accepted by the Grand Chamber   Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom   The applicants are 13 British nationals: Annette Carson, Bernard Jackson, Venice Stewart, Ethel Kendall, Kenneth Dean, Robert Buchanan, Terrance Doyle, John Gould, Geoff Dancer, Penelope Hill, Bernard Shrubsole, Lothar Markiewicz and Rosemary Godfrey, born between 1913 and 1937. The applicants spent most of their working lives in the United Kingdom, paying National Insurance Contributions in full, before emigrating or returning to South Africa, Australia or Canada.   The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about the United Kingdom authorities’ refusal to up-rate their pensions in line with inflation.   In 2002, Ms Carson brought proceedings by way of judicial review to challenge the failure to index-link her pension. She claimed that she had been the victim of discrimination as British pensioners were treated differently depending on their country of residence. In particular, despite having spent the same amount of time working in the United Kingdom, having made the same contributions towards the National Insurance Fund and having the same need for a reasonable standard of living in her old age as British pensioners who were living in the United Kingdom or in other countries where up-rating was available through reciprocal agreements, her basic State pension was frozen at the rate payable on the date she left the United Kingdom. Her application for judicial review was dismissed in May 2002 and ultimately on appeal before the House of Lords in May 2005.   In the House of Lord’s judgment all but one of the judges who examined Ms Carson’s complaint held that she was not in an analogous, or relevantly similar, situation to a pensioner of the same age and contribution record living in the United Kingdom or in a country where up-rating was available through a reciprocal bilateral agreement. Social security benefits, including the State pension, were part of an intricate and interlocking system of social welfare and taxation which existed to ensure certain minimum standards of living for those in the United Kingdom. Contributions to the National Insurance Fund could not be equated to contributions to a private pension scheme, because the money was used, together with money provided from general taxation, to finance a range of different benefits and allowances. Quite different economic conditions applied in other countries: for example, in South Africa, where Ms Carson lived, although there was virtually no social security, the cost of living was much lower, and the value of the rand had dropped in recent years compared to sterling.   The domestic courts further held that Ms Carson and those in her position had chosen to live in societies, or more pointedly economies, outside the United Kingdom; to accept her arguments would be to lead to judicial interference in the political decision as to the redeployment of public funds.   Ms Carson receives a basic State pension of 67.50   pounds sterling (GBP) per week. It has been frozen at that rate since 2000. Had that basic pension been up-rated in line with inflation, it would now be worth GBP 82.05 per week. Ms Carson, now retired, is almost entirely dependent on her British pension to support her.   The applicants alleged, in particular, that the United Kingdom authorities’ refusal to up-rate their pensions in line with inflation was discriminatory and that some of them had to choose between surrendering a large part of their pension entitlement or living far away from their families. They relied on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   In a judgment of 4 November 2008, the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   On 6 April 2009 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicants’ request.     Tănase v. Moldova   The applicants, Alexandru Tănase and Dorin Chirtoacă, are Moldovan and Romanian nationals who were born in 1971 and 1978 respectively and live in Chişinău. They are both well-known Moldovan politicians: Mr   Chirtoacă is Vice-President of the Liberal Party and Mayor of Chişinău; and, Mr   Tănase Vice-President of the Liberal Democratic Party and a member of the Chisinau Municipal Council.   The case concerned the applicants’ complaint that a new electoral law in Moldova breached their right to stand as candidates in free elections and to take their seats in Parliament if elected.   The Republic of Moldova is situated on territory which used to be part of Romania before World War II. That territory’s population lost its Romanian citizenship after annexation by the Soviet Union in 1940. Following Moldova’s declaration of independence in August 1991, a new law was adopted on Moldovan nationality. All those who had lived in the territory of the former Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic before annexation were proclaimed citizens of Moldova; as descendants of those persons, both applicants obtained Moldovan nationality.   In 1991 the Romanian Parliament also adopted a new law on citizenship: former Romanian nationals and their descendants who had lost their nationality before 1989 were allowed to re-acquire Romanian nationality. The applicants subsequently requested and obtained Romanian nationality, the restriction on Moldovan nationals holding other nationalities having been repealed in June 2003.   On 10 April 2008 the Moldovan Parliament reformed the electoral legislation, notably by introducing a ban on those with dual or multiple nationality from becoming members of Parliament (Law   no. 273). Other important amendments included the increasing of the electoral threshold and a ban on all forms of electoral blocks and coalitions. Those amendments were enacted and entered into force in May 2008.   Both the Council of Europe’s Commission against Racism and Intolerance (“ECRI”) and the Venice Commission have expressed concern about those amendments to the Electoral Code. In particular, both bodies pointed out that the provisions of the new law were incompatible with the European Convention on Nationality, ratified by Moldova in November 1999.   The applicants alleged, in particular, that the new electoral law was anti-democratic and breached their right to stand as candidates in free elections and to take their seats in Parliament if elected. Mr Tănase further claimed that Law no. 273 was part of the Communist Party’s larger plan to diminish the chances of the opposition in the forthcoming elections. The applicants relied on Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 (right to free elections) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   On 18 November 2008, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 (right to free elections) to the European Convention on Human Rights concerning Mr   Tănase’s complaint that a new electoral law in Moldova breached his right to stand as a candidate in free elections and to take his seat in Parliament if elected.   On 6 April 2009 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.     The text of the Chamber judgments and corresponding press releases are available on the Court’s Internet site: http://www.echr.coe.int.     2. Cases rejected by the Grand Chamber   Bell v. Belgium (no. 44826/05), judgment of 4 November 2008.   Fešar v. Czech Republic (no. 76576/01), judgment of 13 November 2008.   Oreb v. Croatia (no. 9951/06), judgment of 23 October 2008.   Association Avenir d’Alet v. France (no. 13324/04), judgment of 14 February 2008. Leroy v. France (no. 36109/03), judgment of 2 October 2008.   Paraponiaris v. Greece (no. 42132/06), judgment of 25 September 2008.   Mrúz v. Hungary (no. 3261/05), judgment of 14 October 2008.   Clemeno and Others v. Italy (no. 19537/03), judgment of 21 October 2008.   Dimitrieva v. «   The ex-Yougoslav Republic of Macedonia   » (no. 16328/03), judgment of 6   November 2008. Dimitrievski v. «   The ex-Yougoslav Republic of Macedonia   » (no. 26602/02), judgment of 18   December 2008. Savov and Others v. «   The ex-Yougoslav Republic of Macedonia   » (no. 12582/03), judgment of 25   September 2008. Velova v. «   The ex-Yougoslav Republic of Macedonia   » (no. 29029/03), judgment of 6   November 2008.   Bodeving v. Luxembourg (no. 40761/05), judgment of 23 October 2008.   Edwards v. Malta (no. 17647/04), judgment of 17 July 2008 (just satisfaction).   Guziuk v. Poland (no. 39469/02), judgment of 21 October 2008. Helwig v. Poland (no. 33550/02), judgment of 21 October 2008. Jagiełło v. Poland (no. 8934/05), judgment of 2 December 2008. Kachel v. Poland (no. 22930/05), judgment of 23 September 2008. Kaleta v. Poland (no. 11375/02), judgment of 16 December 2008. Klewinowski v. Poland (no. 43161/04), judgment of 9 December 2008. Krzewski v. Poland (no. 11700/04), judgment of 2 December 2008. Muszyński v. Poland (no. 24613/04), judgment of 13 November 2008. Skibińscy v. Poland (no. 52589/99), judgment of 21 October 2008.   Bogumil v. Portugal (no. 35228/03), judgment of 7 October 2008.   Apahideanu v. Romania (no. 19895/02), judgment of 2 December 2008. Deak v. Romania (no. 42790/02), judgment of 4 November 2008. Dinu v. Romania and France (no. 6152/02), judgment of 4 November 2008. Drăgănescu v. Romania (no. 29301/03), judgment of 30 September 2008. Dragalina v. Romania (no. 17268/03), judgment of 14 October 2008. Lamarche v. Romania (no. 21472/03), judgment of 16 September 2008. Marcel Roşca v. Romania (no. 1266/03), judgment of 7 October 2008. Moroianu v. Romania (no. 16304/04), judgment of 9 December 2008. Niță v. Romania (no. 10778/02), judgment of 4 November 2008. Petre Ionescu v. Romania (no. 12534/02), judgment of 2 December 2008. Petrina v. Romania (no. 78060/01), judgment of 14 October 2008. Pintilie v. Romania (no. 30680/03), judgment of 9 December 2008. S.C. Comprimex S. A. v. Romania (no. 32228/02), judgment of 30 September 2008. Văcăruş v. Romania (no. 1012/02), judgment of 4 November 2008.   Akhmadovy v. Russia (no. 20755/04), judgment of 25 September 2008. Albekov and Others v. Russia (no. 68216/01), judgment of 9 October 2008. Belousov v. Russia (no. 1748/02), judgment of 2 October 2008. Godlevskiy v. Russia (no. 14888/03), judgment of 23 October 2008. Ignatovich v. Russia (no. 19813/03), judgment of 23 October 2008. Ismayilov v. Russia (no. 30352/03), judgment of 6 November 2008. Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 3013/04), judgment of 6 November 2008. Khalidova and Others v. Russia (nos. 12713/02 and 28440/03), judgment of 2 October 2008. Magomadova and Iskhanova v. Russia (no. 33185/04), judgment of 6 November 2008. Magomed Musayev and Others v. Russia (no. 8979/02), judgment of 23 October 2008. Mezhidov v. Russia (no. 67326/01), judgment of 25 September 2008. Moiseyev v. Russia (no. 62936/00), judgment of 9 October 2008. Nasukhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 5285/04), judgment of 18 December 2008. Oleg Nikitin v. Russia (no. 36410/02), judgment of 9 October 2008. Rasayev and Chankayeva v. Russia (no. 38003/03), judgment of 2 October 2008   ; Samoylov v. Russia (no. 64398/01), judgment of 2 October 2008. Shafranov v. Russia (no. 24766/04), judgment of 25 September 2008. Tishkevich v. Russia (no. 2202/05), judgment of 4 December 2008. Tsurova and Others v. Russia (no. 29958/04), judgment of 6 November 2009. Yusupova and Zaurbekov v. Russia (no. 22057/02), judgment of 9 October 2008. Zulpa Akhmatova and Others v. Russia (nos. 13569/02 and 13573/02), judgment of 9   October 2008.   Stanković v. Serbia (no. 29907/05), judgment of 16 December 2008.   Kanala v. Slovakia (no. 57239/00), judgment of 14 October 2008.   Iselsten v. Sweden (no. 11320/05), judgment of 4 November 2008.   Güzel Erdagöz v. Turkey (no. 37483/02), judgment of 21 October 2008. Melek Sima Yilmaz v. Turkey (no. 37829/05), judgment of 30 September 2008. Senaş Servis Endüstrisi A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 19520/02), judgment of 21 October 2008.   Krutko v. Ukraine (No. 2) (no. 33930/05), judgment of 27 November 2008. Mikhaniv v. Ukraine (no. 75522/01), judgment of 6 November 2008.     ***   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.