CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 10 décembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CED24E9 { width:27.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     633   10.12.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY AND MERITS IN THE CASE OF VO v. FRANCE   Wednesday, 10 December 2003 at 9 a.m.     The applicant The case concerns an application (no. 53924/00) brought by a French national, Thi-Nho Vo, who was born in 1967 and lives in Bourg-en-Bresse (France).   Summary of the facts On 27 November 1991, when she was six months’ pregnant, the applicant went to 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. On 3 June 1996, Lyons Criminal Court acquitted the doctor. The applicant appealed and, on 13 March 1997, 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. On 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.   Complaint Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains of the authorities’ refusal to classify the unintentional killing of her unborn child as involuntary homicide. She maintains that France has an obligation to pass legislation making such acts a criminal offence.   Procedure The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 20 December 1999. On 22 May 2003 the Chamber of the Court dealing with the case relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber. On 25 November 2003 the President of the Grand Chamber granted two non-governmental organisations, the Family Planning Association (London) and the Centre for Reproductive Rights (New York), leave to intervene as third parties in the proceedings.   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), Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Lucius Caflisch (Swiss), [1] Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian) , Karel Jungwiert (Czech) , Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger) , John Hedigan (Irish) , Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (Macedonian) , András Baka (Hungarian) , Kristaq Traja (Albanian) , Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian) , Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), judges , Viera Strážnická (Slovakian) , Peer Lorenzen (Danish) , Wilhelmina Thomassen (Netherlands) , Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian) , substitute judges , and also Paul Mahoney , Registrar .     Representatives of the parties   Government :   François Alabrune , Agent , Gilles Dutertre , Judith Vailhe , Pascal Prache, Henri Blondet, Valérie Sagant and Catherine Brouard-Gallet, Counsel ;   Applicant :   Bruno Le Griel , Counsel .   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. A decision on admissibility, followed if appropriate by 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.     Elected as the judge in respect of Liechtenstein.