CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 1 octobre 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s18D96D33 { width:15.69pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBF401EEE { width:32.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     471   1.10.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY AND MERITS IN THE CASES OF GRIEVES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND COOPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   Wednesday 1 October 2003 at 9 a.m.     The applicants   The case concerns applications nos. 57067/00 and 48843/99 brought by two British citizens, Mark Andrew Grieves and Graham Cooper. At the material time they were both serving members of the British Armed Forces.   Summary of the facts   The case raises the question whether trial by court martial in the United Kingdom, under the system in place since the coming into force of the Armed Forces Act 1996, is compatible with Article 6 § 1 (right to fair hearing and to an independent and impartial tribunal) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Grieves - On 18 June 1998 Mr Grieves was convicted by a Royal Navy Court Martial of unlawful and malicious wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, reduced in rank, dismissed from the service and ordered to pay 700 pounds sterling in compensation. On 29 September 1998 the Admiralty Board, having received advice from the Judge Advocate of the Fleet, upheld the court martial’s finding and sentence. Mr Grieves’s appeal to the full Courts-Martial Appeal Court was dismissed on 20   January 2000.   Cooper - On 18 February 1998 Mr Cooper was convicted of theft by an Air Force District Court Martial (“DCM”). He was sentenced to 56 days’ detention, to be reduced to the ranks and dismissed from the service. On 3 April 1998 the Reviewing Authority, having received advice from the Judge Advocate General, upheld the DCM’s finding and sentence. Mr   Cooper’s application for leave to appeal to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court was dismissed on 5 February 1999.   Complaint   The applicants complain, under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that they have been denied a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.       Procedure   Mr Grieves’s application was lodged on 26 April 2000 and declared partly admissible on 4   June 2002. Mr Cooper’s application was lodged on 8 June 1999. On 11 February 2003 the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights to which the Grieves case had been assigned decided unanimously to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber (Article 30 [1] of the Convention and Rule 72 §   1 of the Rules of Court). On 6 May 2003 the Chamber took the same decision for the Cooper case.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Georg Ress (German), Nicolas Bratza (British), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian) Karel Jungwiert (Czech) , Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger) , Josep Casadevall (Andorran) , Matti Pellonpää (Finnish) , Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (Macedonian) , Rait Maruste (Estonian) , Anatoli Kovler (Russian) , Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan) , Lech Garlicki (Polish), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), judges , John Hedigan (Irish) , Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian) , substitute judges , and also Paul Mahoney , Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government:   John Grainger , Agent , Philip Havers , Counsel , Teresa Jones , Humphrey Morrison , Edward Latham , Rick Charles , Jeff Blackett , Stephen Taylor , Tony Paphiti , Advisers ;   Applicant:   Gilbert Blades , Counsel , John Mackenzie , Adviser .   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. A decision on admissibility – and, if appropriate, a judgment – will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   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. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site.   [1] Under Article 30 of the Convention, where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question of interpretation of the Convention or the protocols thereto, or where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court, the Chamber may, at any time before it has rendered its judgment, relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, unless one of the parties objects.