CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 mars 2010

.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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   205 12.03.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   16 March 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will deliver its Grand Chamber judgments in the cases of Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom and Oršuš and Others v. Croatia (application nos. 42184/05 and 15766/ 03) in a public hearing on Tuesday 16 March 2010 at 11.30 a.m. and 11.45 a.m. respectively (local time) in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg.   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 ).   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, Terence Doyle, John Gould, Geoff Dancer, Penelope Hill, Bernard Shrubsole, Lothar Markiewicz and Rosemary Godfrey, born between 1913 and 1937. They all spent some of their working lives in the United Kingdom, paying National Insurance Contributions, before emigrating or returning to South Africa, Australia or Canada.   Their case concerns the UK authorities’ failure to index-link pensions of former British residents who have moved to countries which have not signed a bi-lateral agreement with the UK.   The applicants allege, in particular, that the UK 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 rely 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.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 24   November   2005. 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 and that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 8 taken in conjunction with Article 14.   On 6   April 2009 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicants’ request and a Grand Chamber hearing was held on 2 September 2009.   Oršuš and Others v. Croatia (application no. 15766/03) The applicants are 15 Croatian nationals of Roma origin. They were born between 1988 and 1994 and all live in Orehovica, Podturen and Trnovec in northern Croatia. They attended primary school in the villages of Macinec and Podutren at different times between the years 1996 and 2000. They participated in both Roma-only and mixed classes before leaving school at the age of 15.   The case concerns the applicants’ complaint that they were segregated at primary school because they were Roma.   The applicants allege in particular that their segregation into Roma-only classes at school deprived them of their right to education in a multicultural environment and made them endure severe educational, psychological and emotional harm, and in particular feelings of alienation and lack of self-esteem. They also complain about the excessive length of the proceedings they brought before the domestic courts concerning those complaints. They rely, in particular, on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article   2 of Protocol No.   1 (right to education) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 May 2003. In a judgment of 17   July 2008, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article   2 of Protocol No.   1 taken alone or in conjunction with Article   14 concerning the applicants’ complaint that they were placed in Roma-only classes at primary school; and, a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the excessive length of the proceedings brought by the applicants in particular before the Constitutional Court.   On 1   December 2008 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicants’ request and a Grand Chamber hearing was held on 1 April 2009.     ***   Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) 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.