CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG — 1 mars 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBF11BE31 { width:22.68pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sF6C3BEA1 { width:7.1pt; display:inline-block } .sCD3585DE { width:49.6pt; display:inline-block } .sA3C9CA02 { width:170.6pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s3F08B7AD { width:1.98pt; display:inline-block } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   144 1.3.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARINGS IN MARCH   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding the following hearings in March 2007 :   Wednesday 7 March 2007   Grand Chamber [1]   9 a.m.   Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others v. Greece (application no. 27278/03)   Kakamoukas and Others v. Greece (no. 38311/02)   Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others The 91 applicants, all Greek nationals, are members of the National Health System (Εθνικό Σύστημα Υγείας) in their capacity as doctors, and are employed by the public hospital “O Evangelismos”.   In April 1994 they brought administrative proceedings seeking to have set aside the hospital’s refusal to pay them an allowance for overtime work, set at 1/65 th of their basic salary. On 16   December 1999 Athens Administrative Court of Appeal set aside the disputed administrative decision.   Ruling on an appeal by the hospital, the Supreme Administrative Court, in a judgment of 6   February 2003, overturned the administrative court’s decision on the ground that the ministerial decree on which the applicants based their claim had not been published in due form and was therefore without foundation.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complain about the length and unfairness of the proceedings to which they were parties; in particular, they accuse the Greek courts of failing to examine the merits of their case and allege that the proceedings were neither efficient or convincing. They also allege that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   By a Chamber judgment of 18 May 2006, the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings (namely eight years and more than nine months for two levels of jurisdiction) and declared inadmissible the applicants’ allegations concerning the unfairness of the proceedings and the breach of the right of property. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded each applicant 7,000 euros (EUR), except for one, to whom it awarded EUR 6,895.   The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.     Kakamoukas and Others The applicants are 58 Greek nationals.   On 7 April 1925 the Greek State expropriated an area of land measuring 534,892 m², located on the outskirts of the town of Salonika (Mikra district), for the purpose of building an airport. This area now falls within the jurisdiction of Kalamaria Town Council. An expropriation award was fixed, but the State refused to pay it. The airport was ultimately constructed elsewhere.   In 1967 the State went ahead with expropriation of the disputed plots of land, with a view to building housing for workers. As the decision did not fulfil a public-interest aim, however, it was revoked in 1972. That same year the land in question was designated for the construction of a sports centre and, in 1987, the Salonika prefect modified the development plan (ρυμοτομικό σχέδιο) for the area, which he designated as a “green area” and “sports and leisure zone”.   The applicants or their ascendants brought administrative proceedings seeking to have the encumbrance affecting their land removed. By three judgments, delivered on 20 October 1997, the Supreme Administrative Court granted their request, noting in particular that, having failed for a long time to proceed with the expropriation of the land in question in furtherance of the project provided for in the development plan, the authorities were duty bound to lift the encumbrance on the disputed properties.   On 30 September 1998 Kalamaria Town Council lodged a third-party appeal against the judgments by the Supreme Administrative Court, an appeal which was declared inadmissible on 28 November 2001.   In 1999 the Minister for the Environment and Public Works modified the urban development plan of Kalamaria municipality in order to designate the land in question as the site for a sports and leisure centre. On 9 September 1999 the applicants or their ascendants applied to the Supreme Administrative Court seeking to have the above-mentioned decision set aside. Those proceedings are still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants complain, in particular, about the length of the administrative proceedings to which they were parties, namely three years, one month and 29 days for the first set of proceedings, and more than seven years to date for the pending proceedings.   By a Chamber judgment of 22 June 2006, the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and decided, by five votes to two, to award each applicant EUR   5,000 or EUR 8,000, depending on the case, in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained, as this damage was not sufficiently compensated by the finding of a violation of the Convention. The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.     Thursday 8 March   Chamber       Hearing on the admissibility and merits 9 a.m.   Thiermann and Others v. Norway (no. 18712/03)   The application was brought by 154 Norwegian nationals, four Swedish nationals and one German national – all have a Norwegian mother and a German father and were born during the Second World War. A number of them were registered as children of “ Lebensborn ”, a Nazi scheme, introduced by Heinrich Himmler in 1935, to create children who were deemed racially and genetically pure.   Between late 1940 and 8 May   1945 between 10,000 and 12,000 children were born in Norway with a Norwegian mother and a German father. They were referred to as “war children” ( krigsbarn ).   Towards the end of the war and thereafter, various public officials, notably clergymen and doctors, publicly denounced the war children, claiming that they were mentally and genetically defective and potential Nazi sympathisers.   The applicants claimed that many mothers of war children were marginalised, had great difficulties obtaining employment and often had their children adopted or placed in foster homes or in institutions. Many war children were deprived of their original names and identity, subjected to discrimination, harassment and ill-treatment and left with psychological problems and registered disabled at an early age. Some were placed in psychiatric institutions without adequate prior expert assessment and several were refused baptism certificates.   In his New Year speech to the Norwegian people on 1 January 2000 the Prime Minister, Kjell Magne Bondevik, apologised for the discrimination and injustice to which many war children had been subjected.   As war children, the applicants claimed to have been subjected to ill-treatment, including: Werner Hermann Thiermann (born in 1941) was locked up in a scorching-hot pig sty with another war child for a day because they “stank”. Although almost unconscious on being released, they were then scrubbed with a piassava brush, water and ammoniac. He was harassed with impunity and, aged nine, with his teacher’s blessing, was raped by older boys at school. Harriet von Nickel (born 1942) was regularly locked up, and sometimes attached with a dog chain, to wait for her foster father to come home and hit her. Aged nine or ten she had a swastika marked on her forehead with a nail. Anne-Marie Grübe (born 1944) was regularly beaten by her grandmother and her aunts and frequently imprisoned in her home. Gerd Synnøve Andersen (born 1944) was washed with scalding hot water in her children’s home. During her sixth school year a teacher sexually abused her in front of the whole class. When she married, the priest recommended that she be sterilised. Karl Otto Zinken, (born in 1941) was placed in a special school for mentally retarded children where he was raped by two men. Tove Laila Strand (born in 1941) was burnt by her mother with an iron and sexually abused by her stepfather aged six to 15. Paul Hansen, (born in April 1942) was placed in psychiatric institutions until 1965 without his mental health being assessed.   On 10 December 1999 these seven applicants brought unsuccessful proceedings before Oslo City Court, claiming that, as war children, they had been the victims of violations of Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights. On 16 November 2001 the court found that the State could not be held liable for any actions or omissions during the period prior to the entry into force of the Convention in Norway in September 1953 and, in particular, that the applicants’ compensation claims had been submitted too late (after the expiry of the statutory 20-year time limit).   The other applicants also brought proceedings which were stayed pending a legally enforceable decision in the case brought by the first seven applicants.   By a judgment of 21 June 2002 the High Court unanimously upheld the City Court’s judgment.   The applicants complain about the treatment they endured as war children, as well as the authorities’ failure to take any remedial measures subsequently. They claim the violations are continuing in the sense that they are still reminded in negative terms of their origin and value. They rely on Articles 3, 8 and 14.     Wednesday 14 March 2007   Grand Chamber   9 a.m.   E.B. v. France (no. 43546/02)   The application concerns the refusal by the French authorities to grant the applicant’s request to adopt a child, allegedly on account of her sexual orientation.   The applicant, E.B., is a French national aged 45. She is a nursery school teacher and has been living with another woman, R., who is a psychologist, since 1990.   In February 1998 the applicant applied to the Jura Social Services Department for authorisation to adopt a child. During the adoption procedure she did not hide her homosexuality or her stable relationship with R.   On the basis of the reports drawn up by a social worker and a psychologist, the commission responsible for examining applications for authorisation to adopt gave a decision in November 1998 rejecting the application. This decision was confirmed by the president of the council for the département of the Jura in March 1999. The reasons given for both decisions were the lack of “identificational points of reference” due to the absence of a paternal image or reference and the ambiguous nature of the applicant’s partner’s commitment to the adoption plan.   The applicant lodged an application with Besançon Administrative Court, which set both decisions aside on 24 February 2000. The département of the Jura appealed against the judgment. Nancy Administrative Court of Appeal set aside the Administrative Court’s judgment on 21 December 2000. It held that the refusal to grant the applicant authorisation had not been based on her choice of lifestyle and had not therefore given rise to a breach of Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The applicant appealed on points of law, arguing in particular that her application to adopt had been rejected on account of her sexual orientation. In a judgment of 5 June 2002, the Conseil d’Etat dismissed E.B.’s appeal on the ground, among other things, that the Administrative Court of Appeal had not based its decision on a position of principle regarding the applicant’s sexual orientation, but had had regard to the needs and interests of an adopted child.   The applicant alleges that she was refused authorisation to adopt on account of her sexual orientation and that she was discriminated against on the ground of her homosexuality. She relies on Articles 8 and 14.   On 19 September 2006 the Chamber to which the case had originally been assigned relinquished its jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber under Article 30 [2] of the Convention.     Wednesday 28 March 2007   Grand Chamber   9 a.m.   Ramanauskas v. Lithuania (no. 74420/01)   The applicant, Kęstas Ramanauskas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Kaišiadorys (Lithuania). He worked as a prosecutor in the Kaišiadorys region.   Mr Ramanauskas submitted that in late 1998 and early 1999 he had been approached by AZ, a person previously unknown to him, through VS, a private acquaintance. AZ – who was, in fact, an officer of a special anti-corruption police unit of the Ministry of Interior (STT) – offered the applicant a bribe of USD 3,000 in return for a promise to obtain the acquittal of a third person. The applicant having initially refused, AZ thereafter reiterated the offer a number of times before the applicant agreed.   The Government submitted that VS and AZ had approached the applicant and negotiated the conditions for the bribe on their own initiative, before the authorities were informed.   On an unspecified date AZ informed the STT that the applicant had agreed to accept a bribe and, on 27 January 1999, the Deputy Prosecutor General authorised VS and AZ to simulate criminal acts of bribery.   On 28 January 1999 the applicant accepted 1,500 US dollars (USD) from AZ. On 11   February 1999 AZ paid the applicant a further USD 1,000.   The same day, the Prosecutor General brought a criminal case against the applicant for accepting a bribe, under the then Article 282 of the Criminal Code.   On 29 August 2000 the applicant was convicted of accepting a bribe of USD 2,500 from AZ and sentenced to 19 months and six days’ imprisonment. VS was not examined during the trial.   The judgment was upheld on appeal and the applicant’s cassation appeal was unsuccessful.   On 31 January 2002 the applicant was released on licence.   The applicant complains that he was incited to commit an offence by the State authorities and that, as a result, he was unfairly convicted of bribery. He further alleges that the principle of equality of arms and his defence rights were violated in that one of the two undercover agents in the case was not examined during the trial by the courts or the parties and that the domestic courts did not provide him with an adequate review of his entrapment allegations. He relies on Article   6 (right to a fair hearing).   On 19 September 2006 the Chamber to which the case had originally been assigned relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber under Article 30 [3] of the Convention.   ***   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ). [4]   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   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] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.   [2] Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question affecting the 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 to the case objects.   [3] Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question affecting the 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 to the case objects.   [4] These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court.