CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG — 27 août 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 } .s365FF37E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:11pt } .s6E42BAA0 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:17pt; font-size:11pt } .s980053D4 { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:17pt; font-size:11pt } .sF8D23689 { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:5pt; font-size:11pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA813D16 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; 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 } 613 27.08.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar [1]   HEARINGS IN SEPTEMBER 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding four hearings in September 2010 :   (A limited number of seats are available for the press; they are allocated on a first come first served basis.)     Wednesday 1 September at 9.15 a.m.   Grand Chamber   M. S. S. v. Belgium and Greece (application no.   30696/09)   The applicant, M.S.S., an Afghan national, left Kabul early in 2008 and, travelling via Iran and Turkey, entered the European Union (EU) through Greece.   On 10 February 2009, after passing through France, he arrived in Belgium, where he applied for asylum. By virtue of the “Dublin II” Regulation [2] , the Belgian authorities submitted a request for the Greek authorities to take charge of the asylum application. The applicant objected, arguing that he ran the risk of detention in Greece in appalling conditions, that there were deficiencies in the asylum system in Greece and that he feared ultimately being sent back to Afghanistan without any examination of the reasons why he had fled that country, where he claimed he had escaped a murder attempt by the Taliban in reprisal for his having worked as an interpreter for the air force troops stationed in Kabul.   On 15 June 2009 the applicant was nonetheless transferred to Greece, the Aliens Office considering that Belgium was not the country responsible for examining the asylum application under the Dublin II Regulation and that there was no reason to suspect that the Greek authorities would fail to honour their obligations in asylum matters under Community law and the Geneva Convention on refugee status. On arriving at Athens airport the applicant was immediately placed in detention in an adjacent building, where he says the conditions were overcrowded and insalubrious. Following his release on 18 June 2009, he lived in the street, with no means of subsistence. Today he is still waiting for his first interview with the Greek asylum authorities.   The applicant alleges that by sending him back to Greece the Belgian authorities exposed him to a risk of inhuman and degrading treatment there, and that he was indeed subsequently subjected to such treatment. He also complains that he was sent back to Greece in spite of the risk that the authorities there would order his expulsion to Afghanistan without examining the reasons that made him flee that country. He further contends that he had no effective remedy in Belgium against the expulsion order, and no real guarantee that his asylum application would follow its normal course in Greece, in particular because of the deficiencies in the Greek asylum system. He relies on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 June 2009. On 16 March 2010 the Chamber to which the case was assigned relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.     Wednesday 15   September   Grand Chamber   Chiragov and Others v. Armenia (no. 13216/05) at 9.15 a.m.; and, Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan (no. 40167/06) at 2.30 p.m.   Both cases concern the applicants’ complaints that they were forced to flee from their homes in 1992 during the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh (“the NKAO”) [3] , which, until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, was an autonomous province landlocked within the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic (“the Azerbaijan SSR”). In 1989 the NKAO was approximately 75% ethnic Armenian and 25% ethnic Azeri.   Armed hostilities in Nagorno-Karabakh commenced in 1988, coinciding with Armenian demand for the incorporation of the NKAO into Armenia. In September 1991 Armenian members of the Regional Council of the NKAO announced the establishment of the “Nagorno-Karabakh Republic” (“NKR”), which then declared its independence from Azerbaijan in January 1992. After that, the conflict gradually escalated into full-scale war. By the end of 1993, ethnic Armenian forces gained control over almost the entire territory of the former NKAO as well as seven adjacent Azerbaijani regions. The conflict resulted in hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons and refugees on both sides. In May 1994 the parties to the conflict signed a cease-fire agreement, which holds to this day. However, no final political settlement of the conflict has been reached. The self-proclaimed independence of “NKR” has not been recognised by any state or international organisation.   Chiragov and Others v. Armenia   The applicants Elkhan Chiragov, Adishirin Chiragov, Ramiz Gebrayilov, Akif Hasanof, Fekhreddin Pashayev and Qaraca Gabrayilov are six Azerbaijani nationals who were born in 1950, 1947, 1960, 1959, 1956 and 1940 respectively. Mr Gabrayilov is now deceased and his son has continued the application on his father’s behalf. All but Mr Hasanof now live in Baku.   The applicants state that they are Azerbaijani Kurds who lived in the district of Lachin, in Azerbaijan, which forms a corridor less than ten kilometres wide between Nagorno-Karabakh and the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic (“the Armenian SSR”). The great majority of Lachin’s population were Kurds and Azeris. Due to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the applicants were forced to flee on 17 May 1992. They have not been able to return to their homes and properties since because of Armenian occupation.   The applicants complain in particular about the loss of their properties in Lachin, as well as various other possessions such as cars, livestock and handmade carpets. They also complain that there is no prospect for them in the foreseeable future to be able to use, sell, bequeath, mortgage or develop their property as the Armenian Government continues to refuse to allow them to return to Lachin. Nor have the Armenian authorities made any attempt to compensate them for their losses or to provide a remedy to persons displaced from the occupied territories. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   Finally, the applicants claim, under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with all the above Articles, that, if they had been ethnic Armenian and Christian, they would not have been forcibly displaced from their homes by the Armenian-backed Karabakh forces and that their property rights would have been recognised and their complaints investigated.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6 April 2005. On 9 March 2010 the Chamber to which the case was assigned relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.   Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan   The applicant, Minas Sargsyan, was born in 1929 and lived in Yerevan. He died in 2009 and his widow and children are pursuing the application on his behalf.   He and his family, ethnic Armenians, lived in a two-floor house with auxiliary premises in the village of Gulistan of the Shahumyan region (the Azerbaijan SSR). Shahumyan shared part of NKAO’s northern border. The region did not form part of NKAO, but was later claimed by “NKR” as part of its territory. According to the applicant, prior to the conflict, 82% of the population of Shahumyan were ethnic Armenians. When the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict escalated into full-scale war in 1992, Gulistan was bombed by Azerbaijani forces and the entire population of the village, including the applicant and his family, fled fearing for their lives. His house was destroyed in the bombing.   The applicant complains about his forced displacement from Gulistan and continuing refusal by the Azerbaijani Government to allow him access to his home and belongings. He relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention. He also complains under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), in conjunction with his other complaints, that there were no effective remedies available to ethnic Armenians who were forced to leave their homes in Azerbaijan due to the unresolved status of the Nagorno ‑ Karabakh conflict.   Further relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 and 9 (freedom of religion), he complains about the reports of alleged demolition or vandalism of Armenian cemeteries in Azerbaijan (in Baku and near the town of Julfa). He submits that not being able to visit the graves of his close relatives and not knowing what has happened to them – but aware that they are at risk of destruction – causes him severe suffering and distress, visiting and maintenance of cemeteries being one of his religious customs.   Lastly, he submits under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), in conjunction with his other complaints, that only ethnic Armenians living in Azerbaijan were the target of violence and that the Azerbaijani Government failed to investigate such attacks against Armenians or to provide redress for illegal occupation of their properties as well as destruction of Armenian cemeteries.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 August 2006. On 11 March 2010 the Chamber to which the case was assigned relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.     Wednesday 29   September at 9.15 a.m.   Grand Chamber   Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy (no. 23458/02) The applicants, Giuliano Giuliani, his wife Adelaide Gaggio and their daughter Elena Giuliani, are Italian nationals who were born in 1938, 1944 and 1972 respectively and live in Genoa and Milan (Italy). The application concerns the death of the applicants’ son and brother, Carlo   Giuliani, which occurred when he was involved in clashes during the G8 summit held in Genoa from 19 to 21 July 2001. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants alleged that Carlo’s death had been caused by excessive use of force, that the organisation of the operations to maintain and restore public order had been inadequate and that there had been no effective investigation into his death. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture), they further argued that the failure to lend immediate assistance to Carlo after he had fallen and had been run over by a jeep had contributed to his death and amounted to inhuman treatment. They complained about the lack of an effective investigation also under Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). They lastly alleged that the Italian Government had violated Article 38 (adversarial examination of the case) by failing to provide information to the Court or by submitting erroneous information. The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18 June 2002. A hearing was held in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 5 December 2006 and the application was declared admissible on 6 February 2007. In its Chamber judgment of 25 August 2009 , the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 as regards the excessive use force; by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 2 in respect of the State’s positive obligations to protect life; by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of the procedural obligations under that Article; and, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 38. It also held, unanimously, that it did not need to examine the case under Articles 3, 6 et 13.   On 1 March 2010 the panel of five judges of the Grand Chamber decided to accept the requests for referral to the Grand Chamber submitted by the Italian Government and by the applicants.   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which will be held in private. Its ruling in the case will, however, be made at a later stage.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site .   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Emma Hellyer (telephone: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) 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] An EC regulation under which EU member States are required to determine, based on a hierarchy of objective criteria (Articles 5 to 14), which member State is responsible for examining an asylum application lodged on their   territory. [3] The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast.