CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 juillet 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 } .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 }   546 03.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT   9 July 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will deliver its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Mooren v. Germany (application no.11364/03) in a public hearing on Thursday 9 July 2009 at 10 a.m. (local time) in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention and about the speediness and fairness of the proceedings for review of this detention.   ****     Burghard Theodor Mooren is a German national who was born in 1963 and lived in Mönchengladbach (Germany) at the time his application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights.   On 25 July 2002 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of tax evasion. On 16 August 2002 the Mönchengladbach District Court upheld the detention order. An appeal by the applicant to the Regional Court was dismissed on 9 September 2002. The applicant’s lawyer, who unsuccessfully requested access to the file, refused to accept an offer by the public prosecutor’s office to explain the contents of the file to him orally.   On 14   October 2002 the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal, on an appeal by the applicant, set aside the decisions of August and September 2002 upholding the order for the applicant’s detention and remitted the case to the District Court. The Court of Appeal refused to rule itself on the applicant’s detention or set aside the detention order of 25 July 2002, which it held to be defective in law ( rechtsfehlerhaft ), but not void ( unwirksam ). The applicant’s detention continued.   In late October 2002 the Mönchengladbach District Court again ordered the applicant’s detention. The Regional Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the new order but he was granted a stay of execution under certain conditions. The applicant was released on 7   November 2002 and on 18 November his lawyer was authorised to consult the file. The applicant unsuccessfully referred his case to the Federal Constitutional Court.   On 9   March 2005 the Mönchengladbach District Court found the applicant guilty of tax evasion and sentenced him to a total of one year and eight months’ imprisonment suspended on probation.   The application was lodged on 26 March 2003. The applicant complains that the Court of Appeal did not set aside the order for his detention initially made by the District Court on 25 July 2002 and did not order his release even though it had found the order concerned illegal. By remitting the case to the District Court the Court of Appeal unduly delayed the proceedings for judicial review of the legality of the order complained of, with the result that they were not terminated within a reasonable time. He further complains that during the proceedings on the application for judicial review of the legality of his detention his lawyer was refused access to the file, and that this made it impossible to mount an effective defence. He relies on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   In a judgment of 13   December 2007, the Court held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention. The Court held unanimously that there had been two violations of Article   5   §   4, firstly on account of the fact that the legality of the applicant’s detention had not been speedily reviewed, and secondly because the applicant’s lawyer had been refused permission to consult the file during the proceedings on the application for judicial review of the legality of his client’s detention.   On 2 June 2008, under Article 43 [1] of the Convention the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request. A public hearing took place at the Human Rights building in Strasbourg, on 24 September 2008.     ***   The press release and the text of the judgment will be available 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.