CEDH · PRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG — 26 mai 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s73AF59F6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s15B74CEF { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s7AF76660 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super } .s906CA806 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s96E4206C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt; font-size:11pt } .s12738A17 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:10pt; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s1E310CB4 { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:10pt; font-size:11pt } .s35F1F2CB { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:10pt } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sE956EB34 { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:5pt; font-size:11pt } .s444FCFCE { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 } 419 25.05.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar REQUESTS FOR REFERRAL TO THE GRAND CHAMBER   At its last meeting (10 May 2010), the Grand Chamber panel of five judges decided:     1.     To accept the requests for referral in the following cases:   Bayatyan v. Armenia (application no. 23459/03)   The applicant, Vahan Bayatyan, is an Armenian national born in 1983 and lives in Yerevan (Armenia). He is a Jehovah’s Witness and for reasons of conscience refused to do his military service when called up in 2001. Relying on Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complains about his conviction for refusing to serve in the army as a result of which he served ten and a half months in prison.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 July 2003. In its Chamber judgment of 27 October 2009 , the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 9. The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request.     Aguilera Jiménez and others v. Spain (nos. 28389/06, 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06, 28961/06 et 28964/06)   The applicants, José Antonio Aguilera Jiménez, Juan Manuel Palomo Sánchez, Francisco Antonio Fernández Olmo, Agustín Alvarez Lecegui, Francisco Beltrán Lafulla and Francisco José María Blanco Balbas, are Spanish nationals living in Barcelona. Relying on Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention, they complain of their dismissal from the company which had employed them as deliverymen and where they had been members of the executive board of a trade union, following the publication in the trade union’s news bulletin of cartoons and articles about other employees, including the head of human resources, who considered them insulting.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 13 July 2006. In its Chamber judgment of 8 December 2009 , the Court held, by six votes to one, that the authorities had not exceeded their discretion to penalise the applicants and that there had been no violation of Article 10. The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicants’ request.     2.     To adjourn the request for referral in the following case :   Volnykh v. Russia (no. 10856/03)     3.     To reject the requests for referral in the 37 cases listed below. Judgments in these cases are now final [1] .   Pasko v. Russia (no. 69519/01), judgment of 22 October 2009 Eryilmaz v. Turkey (no. 32322/02), judgment of 27 October 2009 Darnai v. Romania (no. 36297/02), judgment of 8 December 2009 Telegina v. Ukraine (no. 2035/03), judgment of 19 November 2009 Şandru and others v. Romania (no. 22465/03), judgment of 8 December 2009 Stolder v. Italy (no. 24418/03), judgment of 1 December 2009 Shastin and Shastina v. Ukraine (no. 12381/04), judgment of 10 December 2009 Micciché and Guerrera v. Italy (no. 28987/04), judgment of 8 December 2009 Goriany v. Austria (no. 31356/04), judgment of 10 December 2009 Nane and others v. Turkey (no. 41192/04), judgment of 24 November 2009 Sampsonidis and others v. Greece (no. 2834/05), judgment of 5 November 2009 Logachova and others v. Ukraine (nos. 4510/05, 13273/05, 26704/06 and 30757/06), judgment of 10   December 2009 Corbu v. Romania (no. 12393/05), judgment of 19 January 2010 Yangolenko v. Ukraine (no. 14077/05), judgment of 10 December 2009 Vasilchuk v. Ukraine (no. 31387/05), judgment of 10 December 2009 Trzaskalska v. Poland (no. 34469/05), judgment of 1 December 2009 Crompton v. United-Kingdom (no. 42509/05), judgment of 27 October 2009 Goncharov v. Ukraine (no. 7867/06), judgment of 10 December 2009 Gromzig v. Germany (no. 13791/06), judgment of 4 February 2010 Castro Ferreira Leite v. Portugal (no. 19881/06), judgment of 1 December 2009 M.B. v. France (no. 22115/06), judgment of 17 December 2009 Si Amer v. France (no. 29137/06), judgment of 29 October2009 Pikoulas and others v. Greece (no. 1545/08), judgment of 7 January 2010 Georginis-Giorginis v. Greece (no. 3271/08), judgment of 17 December 2009 Anthousa Iordanou v. Turkey (no. 46755/99), judgment of 24 November 2009 Miernicki v. Poland (no. 10847/02), judgment of 27 October 2009 Tebieti Mühafize Cemiyyeti and Israfilov v. Azerbaijan (no. 37083/03), judgment of 8   October 2009 M. v. Germany (no. 19359/04), judgment of 17 December 2009 see Press Release of 11   May 2010 Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia (no. 25965/04), judgment of 7 January 2010 Kaboulov v. Ukraine (no. 41015/04), judgment of 19 November 2009 Ismailov and others v. Russia (no. 33947/05), judgment of 26 November 2009 Ustarkhanova v. Russia (no. 35744/05), judgment of 26 November 2009 Cristian and Mihail Dumitrescu v. Romania (no. 29231/06), judgment of 1   December   2009 Khantiyeva and autres v. Russia (no. 43398/06), judgment of 29 October 2009 Stavrinoudakis v. Greece (no. 26307/07), judgment of 29 October 2009 Société Anonyme Thaleia Karydi Axte v. Greece (no. 44769/07), judgment of 5   November   2009 Panov c. Ukraine (no. 21231/05), judgment of 10 December 2009   ****   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Further information about the Court can be found 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-Trandz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   Kristina Pencheva-Malino.wski (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 sand 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 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