CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG — 24 novembre 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sC052AE2B { width:6pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFD8ACFD7 { width:5.34pt; display:inline-block } .s744935A1 { width:110.53pt; display:inline-block } .s45C90C8D { width:14.51pt; display:inline-block } .s5E81267D { width:28.56pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     609   28.11.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING HEARINGS   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding the following hearings in December 2003 .   Tuesday 2 December 2003   Chamber   9.30 a.m.   AB Kurt Kellermann v. Sweden (application no. 41579/98) Hearing on the merits   The applicant, AB Kurt Kellermann, was a Swedish limited liability company involved in the Swedish textile industry. It was declared bankrupt on 17 June 1998 and dissolved on 30 March 2001.   AB Kurt Kellermann was not a member of an employers’ association and did not have a collective labour agreement covering its workforce of about 20 people. Two of the company’s employees were members of the Industrial Union ( Industrifacket ), affiliated to the Swedish Trade Union Confederation ( Landsorganisationen ).   In the spring of 1997 the Industrial Union tried unsuccessfully to negotiate a collective labour agreement with AB Kurt Kellermann. The applicant company maintained that its employment contracts were more favourable than the minimum terms and conditions proposed by the union. On 3 October 1997 the union took industrial action, going on strike and blocking access to the company premises.   On 17 October 1997 the company brought proceedings against the union, claiming its actions were illegal. The company also filed an objection to the composition of the Labour Court dealing with the case, as it was not made up only of professional judges; two of the seven members participating in the case having been nominated by employers’ organisations and two by employees’ organisations. The company’s objection was rejected and the Labour Court found in favour of the union.   In later proceedings brought by the union – seeking a declaratory judgment that industrial action it intended to carry out was lawful – the Labour Court, on 9 March 1998, again rejected the applicant’s challenge to its impartiality. The court was accordingly composed in the same manner as in the earlier case. Again, it found in favour of the union and issued an interim decision that the industrial action was lawful.   Following industrial action in April 1998, AB Kurt Kellermann signed a collective agreement proposed by the union. The company was declared bankrupt in June 1998.   The applicant company complains that it did not have a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal, as required by Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Chamber   2.30 p.m.   D.P. v. France (no. 53971/00)   Hearing on the merits   The applicant, D.P., is a French national who was born in 1951 and is currently held at the Esses Villeneuve-sur-Lot Detention Centre (France).   He was arrested on suspicion of sexually assaulting his stepdaughters and held in custody between 25 and 27 September 1994. He made a full confession and at the end of his period in police custody was charged with the rape and sexual assault of minors aged under 15 by a person in authority from whom they are legitimately descended and rape and sexual assault by a person in authority. He was remanded in custody.   By an order of 2 July 1996, the indictment division committed the applicant to stand trial before Gironde Assize Court. On 12 February 1997 the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the committal order.   In the judgment of 3 April 1998, Gironde Assize Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 19 years’ imprisonment. He was given a ten-year ban on exercising his civic, civil and family rights. The applicant appealed on the same day to the Court of Cassation, but his appeal was dismissed by the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation on 9 June 1999.   The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention about the composition of the Court of Cassation that examined his appeal against the Assize Court’s judgment and alleges that it was not impartial. His allegation is based on the fact that the judge rapporteur and one of the other judges in the Criminal Division had previously sat on the hearing of his appeal against the committal order made by the indictment division, the former as judge rapporteur and the latter as the president of the chamber.   Wednesday 10 December 2003   Grand Chamber   9.00 a.m.   Vo v. France (no. 53924/00)   Hearing on admissibility and the merits   The applicant, Mrs Thi-Nho Vo, is a French national of Vietnamese origin who was born in 1967 and lives at Bourg-en-Bresse (France).   On 27 November 1991, when she was six months’ pregnant, Mrs Thi-Nho Vo went to the Hôtel-Dieu Hospital in Lyons for a medical examination. On the same day another woman, Mrs Thanh   Van   Vo, was due to have a coil removed at the same hospital.   Owing to a mix-up caused by the fact that both women shared the same surname, the doctor who examined the applicant pierced her amniotic sac, making a therapeutic abortion necessary. Following a criminal complaint lodged by the applicant in 1991, the doctor was charged with causing unintentional injury, the charge subsequently being increased to one of unintentional homicide. By a judgment of 3 June 1996, the Lyons Criminal Court acquitted the doctor. The applicant appealed. On 13 March 1997 the Lyons Court of Appeal overturned the Criminal Court’s judgment, convicted the doctor of unintentional homicide and sentenced him to six-months’ imprisonment, suspended, and a fine of 10,000 French francs. In a judgment of 30   June 1999 following an appeal on points of law, the Court of Cassation reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment, holding that the facts of the case did not constitute the offence of involuntary homicide; it thus refused to consider the foetus as a human being entitled to the protection of the criminal law.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention, the applicant complains of the authorities’ refusal to classify the unintentional killing of the unborn child she was carrying as involuntary homicide. She maintains that the State has an obligation to provide legislation making such acts a criminal offence.   Tuesday 16 December 2003   Chamber   9.30 a.m.   Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 74025/01)   Hearing on the merits   The applicant, John Hirst, is a United Kingdom national born in 1950 who is currently serving a prison sentence in HM Prison Rye Hill, Warwickshire (the United Kingdom).   Mr Hirst complains that, as a convicted prisoner, he is barred from voting in parliamentary and local election by section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.   The applicant issued proceedings in the High Court, seeking a declaration that section 3 of the 1983 act was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, under section 4 of the United Kingdom Human Rights Act 1998.   Mr Hirst’s application was heard before the Divisional Court on 21   and 22 March 2001, together with the application for judicial review of two other prisoners, who had applied for registration as electors and been refused by the Registration Officer and who also sought a declaration of incompatibility. All three claims were rejected. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully.   The applicant complains about being barred from voting under: Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) to the Convention; Article 10 (freedom of expression), in that voting is a form of expression which is fundamental to a functioning democracy; and, Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, in that he is discriminated against as a convicted prisoner in the enjoyment of the right to vote.       ***   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   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.