CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG — 31 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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .s84C82F45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s365FF37E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:11pt } .s86CAAA79 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:5pt; font-size:11pt } .s444FCFCE { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s6E42BAA0 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:17pt; font-size:11pt } .s980053D4 { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:17pt; font-size:11pt } .s3D964D38 { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:17pt } .sF8D23689 { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:5pt; font-size:11pt } .s18744805 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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 } 438 31.05.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar [1]   HEARING IN JUNE 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding three hearings on:   (A limited number of seats can be reserved for the press, on a first come first served basis.)     Tuesday 8   June   2010 at 9   a.m.   Chamber hearing in the cases of Atanasiu and Poenaru v. Romania and Solon   v.   Romania (application nos. 30767/05 and 33800/06).   In the case of Atanasiu and Poenaru v. Romania, the applicants, Mrs Maria Atanasiu and Mrs Ileana Iuliana Poenaru, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1912 and 1937 respectively and live in Bucharest. Their application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 August 2005. The case mainly concerns the applicants’ alleged inability to obtain access to a court in order to claim ownership of a nationalised flat, and the delay on the part of the administrative authorities in ruling on their restitution request.   The applicant in the case of Solon v. Romania is Mrs Ileana Florica Solon, a Romanian national who was born on 17 September 1935 and lives in Bucharest.   Her application was lodged on 4 August 2006 and concerns her inability to obtain compensation under Law no.   10/2001, and its subsequent amendments, in respect of a plot of land nationalised and used by the University of Craiova.   Both cases raise questions under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   The Court has decided that these cases, which concern the systemic problem of restitution or compensation in respect of properties nationalised or confiscated by the communist State in Romania, should be dealt with under the “pilot judgment” procedure, which is designed to achieve an overall settlement of large groups of identical cases. See press release of 25 February 2010 .     Wednesday 9 June 2010 at 9.15 a.m   Grand Chamber hearing in the cases of Al-Skeini and Others v. the   United Kingdom and Al   Jedda v. the United Kingdom (nos.   55721/07 and 27021/08) [2]   These two cases concern the killing and detention of Iraqi civilians by the UK armed forces in Southern Iraq and raise issues of extra-territorial jurisdiction under Article 1 (obligation to respect human rights) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   On 20 March 2003, a United States of America-led coalition, including British armed forces, invaded Iraq. Basra captured by British troops in Southern Iraq and Baghdad by the United States troops, the United Kingdom became an occupying power as of 1 May 2003 under the relevant provisions of the regulations annexed to the 1907 Hague Convention and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention. The occupation of Iraq came to an end on 28 June 2004 when the Iraqi Interim Government assumed full responsibility and authority for governing the country. Between those two dates, in the post-conflict period, the British forces remained in Iraq, together with other coalition forces, operating under a joint command headed by a US general. The UN Security Council (“UNSC”) adopted a series of binding resolutions in which the multinational force was given the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in accordance with their obligations under international law, including those relating to the essential humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. The British troops assumed two main functions: maintaining security and providing support for the provisional administration of Iraq.   Al-Skeini and Others The applicants, Mazin Jum’Aa Gatteh Al-Skeini, Fattema Zabun Dahesh, Hameed Abdul Rida Awaid Kareem, Fadil Fayay Muzban, Jabbar Kareem Ali and Colonel   Daoud Mousa are Iraqi nationals who live in Basra.   The applicants’ six close relatives were killed in Basra during the period (1 May 2003 to 28 June 2004) when the United Kingdom was an occupying power. All but three of the victims were shot dead or shot and fatally wounded by British troops, either on patrol or carrying out raids. The third applicant’s wife was shot and fatally wounded during an exchange of fire between a British patrol and a number of gunmen. The fifth applicant’s son was arrested and taken to a local hospital where he was allegedly beaten and then forced to swim across the Zubair river where he drowned. The sixth applicant’s son, at work in a hotel in Basra, was seized by British troops and taken to a British military base in Basra. Brutally beaten by British troops at the base, he subsequently died of his injuries.   In March 2004, the Secretary of State for defence decided not to conduct independent inquiries into or accept liability for the deaths of the applicants’ relatives and not to pay just satisfaction. The applicants applied for judicial review of those decisions before the British courts. Ultimately, in a judgment of 13 June 2007 the House of Lords found that none of the victims in the first five applicants’ cases, killed as a result of military operations in the field, were under the actual control and authority of British troops at the time since they were outside the “legal space” of the signatory States of the European Convention. As for the facts of the sixth applicant’s complaints, it was accepted that they fell within the United Kingdom’s jurisdiction as part of an exception to the territorial principle (exercise of authority by agents of the State) and the parties agreed that the case should be remitted to the Divisional Court for reconsideration of whether there had been an adequate investigation. In the meantime, court martial proceedings have been brought against a number of individuals involved in the death of the six applicant’s son, on charges ranging from manslaughter to negligent performance of duty.   The applicants allege that their relatives were within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom under Article 1 of the Convention when they were killed through the acts of the British armed forces. They complain under Articles 2 (right to life) and, in the case of the sixth applicant, Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and or degrading treatment) about the failure to carry out a full and independent investigation into the circumstances of each death.   Al   Jedda The applicant, Hilal Abdul-Razzaq Ali Al-Jedda, born in Iraq in 1957, is a British and Iraqi national who is currently living in Istanbul, Turkey. He moved to the United Kingdom in 1992, where he was granted asylum and subsequently British nationality.   In September 2004 the applicant travelled from London to Iraq. He was arrested there in October 2004 by United States troops, accompanied by Iraqi national guards and British soldiers, on suspicion of being a member of a terrorist group involved in weapons smuggling and explosive attacks in Iraq. He was taken to a detention centre in Basra run by British forces. At each periodic review of his detention it was concluded that he remained a threat and that it was still necessary to intern him. He was released on 30 December 2007.   The applicant roundly denied the allegations against him. No criminal charges were brought against him.   In June 2005 he brought a judicial review claim before the British courts, challenging the lawfulness of his continued detention and the refusal to return him to the United Kingdom. The courts held that UNSC Resolution 1546 and successive resolutions authorised British forces within the multi-national force to use internment “where necessary for imperative reasons of security in Iraq” and that such binding Security Council decisions superseded all other treaty commitments. Resolution 1546 therefore overrode Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention in relation to the applicant’s detention in Basra. This decision was ultimately upheld by the House of Lords.   Relying on Article 5 § 1, the applicant complains about his detention in Basra. At the end of the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations. It will give a final decision at a later date in the form of a judgment.     Wednesday 30   June   2010 at 9.15 a.m.   Grand Chamber hearing in the case of Lautsi v. Italy (no. 30814/06) The applicant, Ms Soile Lautsi, is an Italian national who lives in Abano Terme (Italy). In 2001-2002 her children, Dataico and Sami Albertin, aged 11 and 13 respectively, attended the State school “ Istituto comprensivo statale Vittorino da Feltre ” in Abano Terme. All of the classrooms had a crucifix on the wall, including those in which Ms Lautsi’s children had lessons. She considered that this was contrary to the principle of secularism by which she wished to bring up her children. At a meeting of the school’s governing body the applicant’s husband raised the question of the display of religious symbols in classrooms and asked if they could be removed. In May 2002 the governors decided to leave the crucifixes in the classrooms. A directive recommending such an approach was subsequently sent to all head teachers by the Ministry of State Education. On 23 July 2002 the applicant complained to the Veneto Regional Administrative Court about the decision by the school’s governing body, on the ground that it infringed the constitutional principles of secularism and of impartiality on the part of the public authorities. In 2005 the administrative court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It held that the crucifix was both the symbol of Italian history and culture, and consequently of Italian identity, and the symbol of the principles of equality, liberty and tolerance, as well as of the State’s secularism. By a judgment of 13   February 2006, the Consiglio di Stato dismissed an appeal by the applicant. On 3 November 2009 the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) taken together with Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion). The panel of five judges of the Grand Chamber, meeting on 1 and 2 March 2010, accepted the referral request submitted by the Italian Government on 28 January 2010. At the end of the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations. It will give a final decision at a later date in the form of a judgment.   ***   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: + 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] These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. [2] The cases were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 December 2007 and 3 June 2008, respectively. They were relinquished to the Grand Chamber under Article 30 on 19 January 2010.