CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG — 26 août 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sEB64B6F2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#008080 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   629 26.08.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARINGS IN SEPTEMBER   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding the following three hearings in September 2009 :   Wednesday 2 September 2009: 9.15 a.m.   Grand Chamber   Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom (application no. 42184/05)   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 European Convention on Human Rights.   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 Convention. On 6   April 2009 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicants’ request.     Wednesday 16 September 2009: 9.15 a.m.   Grand Chamber   Tănase v. Moldova (no. 7/08)   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.   It is estimated that between 95,000 and 300,000 Moldovans have obtained Romanian nationality between 1991 and 2001; in February 2007 some 800,000 Moldovans had applications pending for Romanian nationality. The most popular second nationality after Romanian is Russian; the Russian Ambassador to Moldova has recently stated that there were approximately 120,000 Moldovans with Russian passports.   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).   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 27   December 2007. The Romanian Government was granted leave to intervene in the proceedings as a third party. In a judgment of 18   November 2008, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 (right to free elections) 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. Under Article   41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Mr   Tănase 3,860   euros (EUR) in respect of costs and expenses. On 6   April 2009 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.     Wednesday 23 September 2009: 9.15 a.m.   Grand Chamber   Mangouras v. Spain (no. 12050/04)   The applicant, Apostolos Ioannis Mangouras, is a Greek national who was born in 1935 and lives in Greece.   He complains 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 EUR   3,000,000.   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 (right to liberty and security), 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.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25   March 2004. On 8   January 2009, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   5   §   3. On 5   June 2009 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request.     ***   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ) [1] .   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) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   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] These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court.