CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 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 } .sB15BD35E { color:#b5082e } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   519 26.06.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT   30 June 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will deliver its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Verein Gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) v. Switzerland (application no.32772/02) in a public hearing on Tuesday 30 June 2009 at 11 a.m. (local time) in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg. The case concerns the applicant association’s complaint about the continued prohibition on it broadcasting a television commercial against pork battery breeding.   ****   Verein Gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) is a Swiss-registered animal-protection association which campaigns against experiments on animals and battery farming.   In response to various advertisements produced by the meat industry, VgT made a television commercial which showed a noisy hall with pigs in small pens.   Permission to broadcast the commercial was refused on 24   January 1994 by the Commercial Television Company ( AG für das Werbefernsehen – now Publisuisse S.A.) and at final instance by the Federal Court, which dismissed an administrative-law appeal by the applicant association on 20   August 1997.   The applicant association lodged an initial application (no.   24699/94) with the European Court of Human Rights, which, in its Chamber judgment of 28   June 2001, held that the Swiss authorities’ refusal to broadcast the commercial in question was in violation of Article   10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded the applicant association 20,000   Swiss   Francs   (CHF) (equivalent of 12,000   euros   (EUR)) for costs and expenses.   On 1   December 2001, on the basis of the Court’s judgment, the applicant association applied to the Federal Court for revision of the final domestic judgment prohibiting the commercial from being broadcast. On 29   April 2002 the Federal Court refused that request.   The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe – which is responsible for supervising execution of the Court’s judgments – was not informed that the Federal Court had refused the request for revision and accordingly ended its examination of the applicant association’s initial application (no.   24699/94) by adopting a final resolution in July 2003. However, the resolution noted the possibility of lodging a request for revision with the Federal Court.   In July 2002 the applicant association lodged the present application with the Court concerning the Federal Court’s refusal of its request for revision and the continued prohibition on broadcasting its television commercial.   Relying in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant association complains about the continued prohibition on broadcasting its television commercial despite the Strasbourg Court’s judgment of 28 June 2001.   The present application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25 July 2002. In its Chamber judgment of 4   October 2007 the Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article   10. On 31   March 2008, the Grand Chamber panel accepted the Swiss Government’s request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 [1] (referral to the Grand Chamber). Third-party comments were received from the Czech Government, who had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2). A public hearing took place in the Human Rights building, Strasbourg, on 9 July 2008.     The press release and the text of the judgment will be available immediately after the hearing on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     ***   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.