CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 septembre 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 } .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 }     643 10.09.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT   18 September 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will deliver its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Varnava and Others v. Turkey (application nos.16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90) in a public hearing on Friday 18 September 2009 at 10.30 a.m. (local time) in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg.     The applications were introduced before the Court in the name and on behalf of 18 Cypriot nationals, nine of whom had disappeared during military operations carried out by the Turkish Army in northern Cyprus in July and August 1974. The nine other applicants are or were relatives of the men who disappeared.   Among the nine people who disappeared, eight were members of the Greek-Cypriot forces that had attempted to oppose the advance of the Turkish army. According to a number of witness statements, they had been among prisoners of war captured by the Turkish military. The ninth person, Mr Hadjipanteli, a bank employee, was taken for questioning by Turkish soldiers on 18 August 1974. His body, which bore several bullet marks, was found in 2007 in the course of a mission carried out by the United Nations Committee of Missing Persons (CMP).   The Turkish Government disputed that these men had been taken into captivity by the Turkish Army. They submitted that the first eight were military personnel who had died in action and that the name of the ninth one did not appear on the list of Greek-Cypriot prisoners held at the stated place of detention, inspected by the International Red Cross. The Cypriot Government stated, however, that the nine men had gone missing in areas under the control of the Turkish forces.   The applicants rely on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 4 (prohibition of forced labour), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 10 (freedom of expression), 12 (right to marry), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The applications were lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 25   January 1990. They were joined by the Commission on 2 July 1991 and declared admissible on 14 April 1998. They were transmitted to the Court on 1   November 1998.   On 17 February 2000 the President of the Court gave the Cypriot Government leave to intervene as a third party in the Court’s proceedings (under Article 36 of the Convention).   In a judgment of 10   January 2008 the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a continuing violation of Article 2 concerning Turkey’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the fate of nine of the applicants, who disappeared in life-threatening circumstances; that there had been a continuing violation of Article 3 concerning the remaining nine applicants; that there had been a continuing violation of Article 5 concerning Turkey’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the fate of the nine men concerning whom there was an arguable claim that they had been deprived of their liberty at the time of their disappearance; unanimously, that no violation of Article 5 had been established concerning the alleged detention of the nine men; and that it was not necessary to examine the complaints brought under Articles 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 14.   On 7 July 2008, under Article 43 [1] of the Convention, the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Turkish Government’s request. On 18 September 2008 the organisation REDRESS was granted leave to intervene in the written procedure. A public hearing took place at the Human Rights building in Strasbourg, on 19 November 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) or 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] 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.