CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 septembre 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 } .sC547D3F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s19A99A56 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:17pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s92211FAE { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:17pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s33F76D61 { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s444FCFCE { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s4D4F15A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sACA0C168 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:5pt; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } 629 03.09.2010 Press release issued by the Registrar FORTHCOMING GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT 10 September 2010     The European Court of Human Rights will deliver its Grand Chamber [1] judgment in the case of McFarlane v. Ireland (application no. 31333/06) at a public hearing on Friday 10   September 2010 at 11 a.m. - local time - in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg.   The press releases and the text of the judgment will be available after the hearing on the Court’s Internet site ( www.echr.coe.int ).   Principal facts   The applicant, Brendan McFarlane, is an Irish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Belfast. The case concerns the Irish’ authorities’ delay of more than 14 years in bringing criminal proceedings against him for an offence allegedly committed in 1983.   In early 1998 Mr McFarlane was released on parole after serving a prison sentence in Northern Ireland for his involvement in a bombing in the 1970s for which the IRA (Irish Republican Army) was found to be responsible. A few days after his release, he was arrested and detained by the Irish police and subsequently charged with false imprisonment and the unlawful possession of firearms, offences he was alleged to have committed in 1983 when he had escaped from prison. He was later released on bail.   Mr McFarlane brought judicial review proceedings with regard to his prosecution, claiming that the delay in bringing criminal proceedings against him had prejudiced his prospect of obtaining a fair trial and that the failure of the prosecuting authorities to maintain and have available for inspection certain items of evidence had limited his ability to fully contest the nature and strength of the evidence to be introduced at his trial. His claims regarding the delay in instituting proceedings were eventually dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2006 finding that the decision when to prosecute clearly rested with the prosecuting authorities. With regard to the loss of evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court deciding on the case would have to assess whether there was any unfairness for which the prosecution was responsible. A further application to prohibit the prosecution on grounds of delay was dismissed in January 2008. He was finally acquitted in June 2008.   Complaints and procedure   The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, that the Irish authorities delayed bringing and proceeding with the criminal proceedings against him and, under Article 6 § 3 (d) (right to a fair trial), that, as a result of the delay, key prosecution evidence was lost. Relying on Article 8 § 2 (right to respect for private and family life), he further complains that his arrest and detention amounted to a deliberate and disproportionate interference with his private and family life. He also alleges, relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), that there was no effective remedy under Irish law for his grievances, particularly concerning the length of the proceedings.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21 July 2006. On 20   October 2009, the Chamber to which the case had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber. A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, in Strasbourg, on 3 March 2010.   ***   The press release is produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site . To receive the Court’s press releases, you can subscribe to the Court’s RSS feeds .   ***   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08 Emma Hellyer (tel: +33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 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] Grand Chamber jugements are final.