CEDH · PRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG — 1 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s51351B31 { margin-left:28.06pt; padding-left:7.94pt; font-family:serif; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   721 01.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   REFERRALS TO THE GRAND CHAMBER   The following cases have been referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights:   Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands (application no. 38224/03); Şerife Yiğit v. Turkey (no. 3976/05); Sakhnovskiy v. Russia (no. 21272/03).   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.   Judgments in a further 56 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   Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands   Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. is a limited liability company, specialising in publishing and marketing magazines, incorporated under Netherlands law and based in Hoofddorp (the Netherlands). Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the company complained that it had been compelled to hand over a CD-ROM that could reveal the identity of journalistic sources who, on the promise of anonymity, had supplied information about an illegal street race for cars which had taken place in January 2002 and of which the applicant company had taken pictures.   In its judgment of 31 March 2009, noting that, in principle, the compulsory handing over of journalistic material might have a chilling effect on the exercise of journalists’ freedom of expression, the Chamber examining the case held that there was nothing to prevent the domestic authorities from weighing up conflicting interests, for example by prosecuting crimes committed by persons who enjoyed the protection of journalistic privilege. The Chamber found in particular that the information contained on the CD-ROM which the applicant company had been obliged to hand over to the authorities had been relevant and capable of identifying the perpetrators of other crimes and that the authorities had used the information solely for those purposes. The Chamber held by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 10, and on 14 September 2009 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant company’s request.   Şerife Yiğit v. Turkey   The applicant, Şerife Yiğit, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Gaziantep (Turkey). In 1976 she married Ömer Koç (Ö.K.) in a religious ceremony ( imam nikah ). Ö.K. died on 10 September 2002. The youngest of their six children, Emine, was born in 1990. On 11 September 2003 Şerife Yiğit brought an action, in her own name and that of Emine, seeking to have her marriage with Ö.K. recognised and to have Emine entered in the civil register as his daughter. The District Court allowed the second request but rejected the request concerning the marriage. The applicant further applied to the retirement pension fund ( Bağ-Kur ) to have Ö.K.’s retirement pension and health-insurance benefits transferred to her and her daughter. The benefits were granted to Emine but not to her mother, on the ground that her marriage to Ö.K. had not been legally recognised. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully against that decision. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for family life), the applicant complained about the Turkish courts’ refusal to transfer her deceased partner’s social-security entitlements to her.   In its judgment of 20 January 2009 the Chamber examining the case found that it was not unreasonable for special protection to be afforded only to civil marriages in Turkey, pointing out that marriage remained an institution widely recognised as conferring a particular status on those who entered into it. It considered that the difference in treatment between married and unmarried couples with regard to survivors’ benefits was aimed at protecting the traditional family based on the bonds of marriage and was therefore legitimate and justified. Accordingly, the Chamber held by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 8.   On 14 September 2009 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request.   Sakhnovskiy v. Russia   The applicant, Sergey Sakhnovskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Novosibirsk (Russia). In December 2001 he was convicted of murdering his father and uncle and sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial), he alleged that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair, in particular because, at an appeal hearing, he had not been provided with the necessary legal assistance and had not been able to defend himself effectively as he could only communicate with the court via a video link.   In its judgment of 5 February 2009 the Chamber examining the case held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) in that, since Mr Sakhnovskiy and his lawyer had had no personal contact either before or during the hearing, the lawyer’s role had been reduced to a mere formality. Nor had the lawyer been able to plead the applicant’s case effectively as he had had to base his submissions on grounds of appeal lodged five years earlier by another lawyer.   On 14 September 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. [3]     2. Cases rejected by the Grand Chamber   Janković v. Croatia (no. 38478/05), judgment of 5 March 2009.   Gikas v. Greece (no. 26914/07), judgment of 2 April 2009. Karavelatzis v. Greece (no. 30340/07), judgment of 16 April 2009.   Abdelhedi v. Italy (no. 2638/07), judgment of 24 March 2009. Ben Salah v. Italy (no. 38128/06), judgment of 24 March 2009. Bouyahia v. Italy (no. 46792/06), judgment of 24 March 2009. C.B.Z. v. Italy (no. 44006/06), judgment of 24 March 2009. Darraji v. Italy (no. 11549/05), judgment of 24 March 2009. Hamraoui v. Italy (no. 16201/07), judgment of 24 March 2009. O. v. Italy (no. 37257/06), judgment of 24 March 2009. Soltana v. Italy (no. 37336/06), judgment of 24 March 2009.   Stephens v. Malta (No. 1) (no. 11956/07), judgment of 21 April 2009. Stephens v. Malta (No. 2) (no. 33740/06), judgment of 21 April 2009.   Dacia S.R.L. v. Moldova (no. 3052/04), judgment of 24 February 2009. Eugenia and Doina Duca v. Moldova (no. 75/07), judgment of 3 March 2009. Iordachi and Others v. Moldova (no. 25198/02), judgment of 10 February 2009.   Dorota and Zbigniew Nowak v. Poland (no. 17904/04), judgment of 24 March 2009.   Ciovică v. Romania (no. 3076/02), judgment of 31 March 2009. Didu v. Romania (no. 34814/02), judgment of 14 April 2009. Hertzog and Others v. Romania (no. 34011/02), judgment of 14 April 2009. Ileana Lazăr v. Romania (no. 5647/02), judgment of 17 February 2009. Mihuţă v. Romania (no. 13275/03, judgment of 31 March 2009. Mureşan v. Romania (no. 8015/05), judgment of 26 May 2009.   Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia (no. 15217/07), judgment of 12 March 2009. Arzu Akhmadova and Others v. Russia (no. 13670/03, judgment of 8 January 2009. Astamirova and Others v. Russia (no. 27256/03), judgment of 26 February 2009. Bantayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 20727/04), judgment of 12 February 2009. Batsanina v. Russia (no. 3932/02), judgment of 26 May 2009. Dokuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 6704/03), judgment of 2 April 2009. Dzhabayeva v. Russia (no. 13310/04), judgment of 2 April 2009. Dzhabrailova v. Russia (no. 1586/05), judgment of 9 April 2009. Dzhambekova and Others v. Russia (nos. 27238/03 and 35078/04), judgment of 12 March 2009. Dzhamayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 43170/04), judgment of 8 January 2009. Elsiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 21816/03), judgment of 12 March 2009. Khadayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 5351/04), judgment of 12 March 2009. Khalitova v. Russia (no. 39166/04), judgment of 5 March 2009. Khaydayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 1848/04), judgment of 5 February 2009. Kudeshkina v. Russia (no. 29492/05), judgment of 26 February 2009. Meshayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 27248/03), judgment of 12 February 2009. Polonskiy v. Russia (no. 30033/05), judgment of 19 March 2009. Sagayev and Others v. Russia (no. 4573/04), judgment of 26 February 2009. Saydaliyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 41498/04), judgment of 2 April 2009. Sibgatullin v. Russia (no. 32165/02), judgment of 23 April 2009. Sun v. Russia (no. 31004/02), judgment of 5 February 2009. Vagapova and Zubirayev v. Russia (no. 21080/05), judgment of 26 February 2009.   Felbab v. Serbia (no. 14011/07), judgment of 14 April 2009.   Rogelj v. Slovenia (no. 21415/02), judgment of 3 March 2009.   Ali Kemal Uğur and Others v. Turkey (no. 8782/02), judgment of 3 March 2009. Ancel v. Turkey (no. 28514/04), judgment of 17 February 2009. Balci v. Turkey (no. 31079/02), judgment of 17 February 2009. Davut Miçooğullari v. Turkey (no. 6045/03), judgment of 16 December 2008. Erbey v. Turkey (no. 29188/02), judgment of 10 March 2009. Karakuş v. Turkey (no. 19467/07), judgment of 14 April 2009. Memet Siret Atalay v. Turkey (no. 3816/03), judgment of 31 March 2009.   Kooperativ Kakhovskiy-5 v. Ukraine (no. 20728/04), judgment of 19 February 2009. Pysatyuk v. Ukraine (no. 21979/04), judgment of 16 April 2009.     ****   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. [2] Under Article 44 § 2 (c) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the judgment of a Chamber becomes final when the panel of the Grand Chamber rejects the request to refer under Article 43. 3.     This summary by the registry does not bind the Court.