CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG — 30 novembre 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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7C447C01 { width:204.96pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   900 30.11.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARINGS IN DECEMBER   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding the following two hearings in December   2009 :     Wednesday 9 December at 9.15 a.m.   Grand Chamber [1] A. B. and C.   v. Ireland (application no. 25579/05)     The applicants are three women who live in Ireland: two are Irish nationals and one is a Lithuanian national.   The case concerns their complaints about restriction on obtaining an abortion in Ireland.   All three applicants travelled to the UK to have an abortion after becoming pregnant unintentionally.   The first applicant, a former alcoholic whose four children had been placed in foster care, decided to have an abortion to avoid jeopardising her chances of reuniting her family. She paid for the abortion in a private clinic in the UK by borrowing money from a money lender.   The second applicant was not prepared to become a single parent. While initially she feared an ectopic pregnancy, she was aware it was not prior to travelling to the UK for an abortion.   The third applicant, in remission from cancer and unaware that she was pregnant, underwent a series of check ups contraindicated during pregnancy. She also understood that there was a risk that her pregnancy would cause a relapse of the cancer. She was unclear and concerned about the risks to her health and life and to the foetus if she continued to term and claimed she could not obtain clear advice. She therefore decided to have an abortion in the UK.   On their return to Ireland the applicants claim they experienced medical complications.   All three women complain that the impossibility for them to have an abortion in Ireland made the procedure unnecessarily expensive, complicated and traumatic. In particular, that restriction stigmatised and humiliated them and risked damaging their health and, in the third applicant’s case, even her life. They rely on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman and or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights. They all also complain, under Article 8 (right to respect for family and private life), that the national law on abortion was not sufficiently clear and precise, since the Constitutional term “unborn” was vague and the criminal prohibition on abortion was open to different interpretations. The fact that women – provided they had sufficient resources – could travel outside Ireland to have an abortion defeated the aim of the restriction and the fact that abortion was available in Ireland only in very limited circumstances was disproportionate and excessive. Furthermore, the restriction placed an excessive burden on the applicants as women, in breach of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), and particularly on the first applicant, whose financial means were extremely limited.     Wednesday 16 December at 9.15 a.m.   Grand Chamber [2]   Şerif Yiğit v. Turkey (no. 3976/05)   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 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention.   On 14   September 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 ). [3]   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) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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] Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or the protocols thereto, or where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court, the Chamber may, at any time before it has rendered its judgment, relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, unless one of the parties to the case objects. [2] 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.   [3] These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court.