CEDH · PRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG — 25 juin 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB15BD35E { color:#b5082e } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s32B93E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9B49264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s1E59FF54 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:10pt } .s35F1F2CB { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:10pt } .s995BFA6B { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left }   514 25.06.2009   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:   Mangouras v. Spain (application no. 12050/04)   ; Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland (no. 41615/07)   ; Taxquet v. Belgium (no. 926/05).   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 case:   Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. United Kingdom (nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06).   Judgments in a further 46 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   Mangouras v. Spain   The applicant, Apostolos Ioannis Mangouras, is a Greek national who was born in 1935 and lives in Greece.   He complained of the decision to remand him in custody on suspicion of offences including offences against natural resources and the environment.   Mr Mangouras was formerly the captain of a ship, the Prestige , which in November 2002, while sailing off the Spanish coast, released into the Atlantic Ocean the 70,000 tons of fuel oil it was carrying.   A criminal investigation was opened and the applicant was remanded in custody with bail fixed at three million euros.   Mr Mangouras was detained for 83 days and released when his bail was paid by the   Prestige owner’s insurers.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant alleges, among other complaints, that the amount of bail required was excessively high and had been fixed without regard for his personal situation.   On 5 June 2009 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request.     Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland   The applicants, Isabelle M. Neulinger and her son Noam Shuruk, are Swiss nationals who were born in 1959 and 2003 respectively and live in Lausanne (Switzerland, Canton of Vaud).   In 1999 Ms Neulinger, who is Jewish, settled in Israel where she married Shai Shuruk in 2001. Their son, Noam, was born in Tel Aviv in 2003.   Ms Neulinger, fearing that Noam would be abducted by his father into a “Loubavitch-Habad” community, applied to the Tel Aviv Family Court, which in 2004 imposed a ban on Noam leaving the country until he attained majority. The first applicant was granted interim custody and parental responsibility was granted to both parents jointly. The father’s contact rights were subsequently restricted on account of his threatening behaviour.   On 10 February 2005 the parents divorced and on 24 June 2005 the first applicant secretly left Israel for Switzerland with her son.   In a decision of 30 May 2006, issued following an application by the child’s father, the Tel Aviv Family Court observed that the child was habitually resident in Tel Aviv and that the parents had joint parental responsibility for their son. The court held that the child’s removal from Israel without the father’s consent was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 25 October 1980.   On 12 June 2006, following an extremely urgent application by the father, the Justice of the Peace of the Lausanne district ordered the first applicant to hand her and her son’s passports into the registry of the Justice of the Peace Court immediately.   In a decision of 29 August 2006, the father’s application for his son’s return to Israel was dismissed by the Justice of the Peace of the Lausanne district on the ground that there was a grave risk that the child’s return to Israel would expose him to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place him in an intolerable situation.   On 22 May 2007 the Vaud Cantonal Court, dismissing the father’s application, confirmed that this case was an exception to the principle of the child’s prompt return, in accordance with Article 13 first paragraph, letter b) of the Hague Convention.   On 16 August 2007 the Federal Court allowed an appeal by the father on the ground that that Article had been wrongly applied and ordered the first applicant to return the child to Israel.   The applicants rely, in particular, on Article 8 of the Convention, submitting that Noam’s return to Israel would constitute an unjustified interference, in a democratic society, with the exercise of their right to respect for family life.   On 5 June 2009 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicants’ request.     Taxquet v. Belgium   The applicant, Richard Taxquet, is a Belgian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Angleur (Belgium). He was accused in 2003 of murdering a government minister and attempting to murder the minister’s partner. He was sentenced in January 2004 to 20 years’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (right to a fair trial and right to examine witnesses), Mr Taxquet complains that the criminal proceedings brought against him were unfair since the ruling by the Assize court did not include a statement of reasons and could not be appealed against to a body competent to hear all aspects of the case. .   On 5 June 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   Holzinger v. Austria (N° 3) (no. 9318/05), judgment of 15 January 2009.   Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 412/03 and 35677/04), judgment of 22 January 2009.   Ćosić v. Croatia (no. 28261/06), judgment of 15 January 2009.   Leonidis v. Greece (no. 43326/05), judgment of 8 January 2009.   Petkoski and Others v. «   The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   » (no. 27736/03), judgment of 8 January 2009.   Avram v. Moldava (no. 2886/05), judgment of 9 December 2008.   Górkiewicz v. Poland (no. 41663/04), judgment of 13 January 2009. Makuszewski v. Poland (no. 35556/05), judgment of 13 January 2009. Palewski v. Poland (no. 32971/03), judgment of 20 January 2009. Pióro and Łukasik v. Poland (no. 8362/02), judgment of 2 December 2008. Słavomir Musiał v. Poland (no. 28300/06), judgment of 20 January 2009. Tekiela v. Poland (no. 35785/07), judgment of 13 January 2009. Wojciechowski v. Poland (no. 5422/04), judgment of 9 December 2008.   Lucretia Popa and Others v. Romania (no. 13451/03), judgment of 9 December 2008.   Abdulkadyrova and Others v. Russia (no. 27180/03), judgment of 8 January 2009. Abdurzakova and Abdurzakov v. Russia (no. 35080/04), judgment of 15 January 2009. Akhmadova and Others v. Russia (no. 3026/03), judgment of 4 December 2008. Aleksanyan v. Russia (no. 46468/06), judgment of 22 December 2008. Askharova v. Russia (no. 13566/02), judgment of 4 December 2008. Ayubov v. Russia (no. 7654/02), judgment of 12 February 2009. Bersunkayeva v. Russia (no. 27233/03), judgment of 4 December 2008. Dangayeva and Taramova v. Russia (no. 1896/04), judgment of 8 January 2009. Dolsayev and Others v. Russia (no. 10700/04), judgment of 22 January 2009. Idalova and Idalov v. Russia (no. 41515/04), judgment of 5 February 2009. Ilyasova and Others v. Russia (no. 1895/04), judgment of 4 December 2008. Kazakov v. Russia (no. 1758/02), judgment of 18 December 2008. Kozodoyev v. Russia, Kozhevnikova v. Russia & Kozodoyev and Others v. Russia (nos. 2701/04, 3597/04, 11898/04, 31946/04 and 34826/04), judgment of 15 January 2009. Medova v. Russia (no. 25385/04), judgment of 15 January 2009. Mikhaylovich v. Russia (no. 30019/05), judgment of 12 February 2009. Mirilashvili v. Russia (no. 6293/04), judgment of 11 December 2008. Musikhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 27243/03), judgment of 4 December 2008. Sambiyev and Pokayeva v. Russia (no. 38693/04), judgment of 22 January 2009. Shakhgiriyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 27251/03), judgment of 8 January 2009. Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 20580/04), judgment of 4 December 2008. Zaurbekova and Zaurbekova v. Russia (no. 27183/03), judgment of 22 January 2009.   F. H. v. Sweden (no. 32621/06), judgment of 20 January 2009.   Schlumpf v. Switzerland (no. 29002/06), judgment of 8 January 2009.   Berber v. Turkey (no. 20606/04), judgment of 13 January 2009. Korkut v. Turkey (no. 10693/03), judgment of 9 December 2008. Mustafa Açikgöz v. Turkey (no. 34588/03), judgment of 9 December 2009. Terzioğlu and Others v. Turkey (nos. 16858/05, 23953/05, 34841/05, 37166/05, 19638/06   and 17654/07), judgment of 16 December 2008. Zöhre Akyol v. Turkey (no. 28668/03), judgment of 4 November 2008.   Khristov v. Ukraine (no. 24465/04), judgment of 19 February 2009. Kushnarenko v. Ukraine (no. 18010/04), judgment of 13 November 2008. Mitakiy v. Ukraine (no. 183/06), judgment of 19 February 2009.   Joseph Grant v. United Kingdom (no. 10606/07), judgment of 8 January 2009.     ***   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.