CEDH · PRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG — 14 avril 2008

.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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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   265 14.4.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CASES ACCEPTED FOR REFERRAL TO THE GRAND CHAMBER   The following cases have been referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights:   Verein Gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) v. Switzerland (application no. 32772/02); and, Kozacioğlu v. Turkey (no. 2334/03).   At its last meeting, the Grand Chamber panel of five judges accepted the above two cases for referral to the Grand Chamber, under Article 43 [1] of the European Convention on Human Rights. The panel also adjourned two cases:   Teren Aksakal v. Turkey (no. 51967/99)   ; and, Meral v. Turkey (no. 33446/02).   Judgments in a further 55 cases, listed at the end of the press release, are now final [2] , after requests for them to be referred to the Grand Chamber were rejected.   The text of the Chamber judgment and corresponding press release in each case are available on the Court’s Internet site: http://www.echr.coe.int.     1. Cases accepted by the Grand Chamber   Verein Gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) v. Switzerland   The applicant, Verein Gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT), is a Swiss-registered animal-protection association which campaigns against experiments on animals and battery farming.   In response to various advertisements produced by the meat industry, it made a television commercial which showed a noisy hall with pigs in small pens and compared the conditions to those in concentration camps.   Permission to broadcast the commercial was refused on 24 January 1994 by the Commercial Television Company ( AG für das Werbefernsehen – now Publisuisse S.A.) and at final instance by the Federal Court, which dismissed an administrative-law appeal by the applicant association on 20 August 1997.   The applicant association lodged an initial application (no. 24699/94) with the European Court of Human Rights, which, in its Chamber judgment of 28 June 2001, held that the Swiss authorities’ refusal to broadcast the commercial in question was in violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   On 1 December 2001, on the basis of the Court’s judgment, the applicant association applied to the Federal Court for revision of the final domestic judgment prohibiting the commercial from being broadcast. On 29 April 2002 the Federal Court refused that request.   The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe – which is responsible for supervising execution of the Court’s judgments – was not informed that the Federal Court had refused the request for revision and accordingly ended its examination of the applicant association’s initial application (no. 24699/94) by adopting a resolution in July 2003. However, the resolution noted the possibility of lodging a request for revision with the Federal Court.   In July 2002 the applicant association lodged a second application (no.32772/02) with the Court, complaining about the continued prohibition on broadcasting the television commercial in question.   In its Chamber judgment of 4 October 2007 in that case, the Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 10.   On 19 December 2007, the Swiss Government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber. That request was accepted on 31 March 2008.   Kozacioğlu v. Turkey   The applicant, İbrahim Kozacıoğlu, a Turkish national, died in 2005. His heirs decided to continue with the application before the Court.   In April 2000 a building belonging to the applicant was expropriated by the Ministry of Culture on the ground that it had been classified as a “cultural asset”. The applicant was paid approximately 65,326 euros (EUR) on the transfer of the property.   In October 2000 the applicant lodged an application for increased compensation, requesting that a new panel of experts re-assess the property and take into account its historical value. He argued in particular that the building in question featured on the Council of Europe’s inventory of cultural and natural heritage, and claimed approximately EUR   1,728,075 in additional compensation. Two different panels of experts found in June 2001 that, in view of the nature of the property, its value should be increased by 100%. However, in May 2002, the domestic courts awarded the applicant a final sum of approximately EUR   45,980 in additional compensation.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complained in particular of an infringement of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.   In its Chamber judgment of 31 July 2007, the Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It also found that the judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR   75,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses.   On 31 October 2007, the Turkish Government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber. That request was accepted on 31 March 2008.     2. Cases rejected by the Grand Chamber   Gjonbocari and Others v. Albania (no. 10508/02), judgment of 23 October 2007.   Lelievre v. Belgium (no. 11287/03), judgment of 8 November 2007. Nicolai de Gorhez v. Belgium (no. 11013/05), judgment of 16 October 2007.   Lesnina D.D. v. Croatia (no. 18421/05), judgment of 25 October 2007. Štitić v. Croatia (no. 29660/03), judgment of 8 November 2007.   Smatana v. Czech Republic (no. 18642/04), judgment of 27 September 2007.   Kari Uoti v. Finland (no. 21422/02), judgment of 23 October 2007.   Schmidt v. France (no. 35109/02), judgment of 26 July 2007.   Housing Association of War Disabled and Victims of War of Attica and Others v. Greece (no. 35859/02), judgment of 27 September 2007. Kanellopoulou v. Greece (no. 28504/05), judgment of 11 October 2007.   Czmarkó v. Hungary (no. 26242/04), judgment of 9 October 2007. Várnai v. Hungary (no. 14282/04), judgment of 23 October 2007.   Capone and Centrella v. Italy (no. 45836/99), judgment of 16 October 2007.   L. v. Lithuania (no. 27527/03), judgment of 11 September 2007.   Gusovschi v. Moldova (no. 35967/03), judgment of 13 November 2007. Tiberneac v. Moldova (no. 18893/04), judgment of 16 October 2007.   Lewak v. Poland (no. 21890/03), judgment of 6 September 2007. Piątkiewicz v. Poland (no. 39958/02), judgment of 16 October 2007.   Herdade da Comporta – Actividades Agro Silvícolas e Turísticas, S. A. v. Portugal (no. 41453/02), judgment of 10 July 2007.   Anghel v. Romania (no. 28183/03), judgment of 4 October 2007. Blidaru v. Romania (no. 8695/02), judgment of 8 November 2007. Corabian v. Romania (no. 4305/03), judgment of 27 September 2007. Drăculet v. Romania (no. 20294/02), judgment of 6 December 2007. Isar v. Romania (no. 42212/04), judgment of 25 October 2007. Larco and Others v. Romania (no. 30200/03), judgment of 11 October 2007. Muşat v. Romania (no. 33353/03), judgment of 11 October 2007.   Goncharuk v. Russia (no. 58643/00), judgment of 4 October 2007. Goygova v. Russia (no. 74240/01), judgment of 4 October 2007. Krasnov and Skuratov v. Russia (nos. 7864/04 and 21396/04), judgment of 19 July 2007. Kudrina v. Russia (no. 27790/03), judgment of 21 juin 2007. Levochkina v. Russia (no. 944/02), judgment of 5 July 2007. Magomadov and Magomadov v. Russia (no. 68004/01), judgment of 12 July 2007. Makhauri v. Russia (no. 58701/00), judgment of 4 October 2007. Musayev and Others v. Russia (nos. 57941/00, 58699/00 and 60403/00), judgment of 26 July 2007. Musayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 74239/01), judgment of 26 July 2007. Nevolin v. Russia (no. 38103/05), judgment of 12 July 2007. Nikolay Zhukov v. Russia (no. 560/02), judgment of 5 July 2007. Osher and Osher v. Russia (no. 31296/02), judgment of 25 October 2007. Smirnitskaya and Others v. Russia (no. 852/02), judgment of 5 July 2007. Vedernikova v. Russia (no. 25580/02), judgment of 12 July 2007. Volkova and Basova v. Russia (no. 842/02), judgment of 5 July 2007.   Lepojić v. Serbia (n o 13909/05), judgment of 6 November 2007.   Stanková v. Slovakia (no. 7205/02), judgment of 9 October 2007.   Ivanovska v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 10541/03), judgment of 15 November 2007.   Abdülkerim Arslan v. Turkey (no. 67136/01), judgment of 20 September 2007. Akyüz v. Turkey (no. 35837/02), judgment of 29 November 2007. Aslan and Others v. Turkey (nos. 75202/01, 9820/02 and 27942/02), judgment of 11 December 2007. Mehmet Peker v. Turkey (no. 49276/99), judgment of 20 November 2007.   Bulgakov v. Ukraine (no. 59894/00), judgment of 11 September 2007. Morgunenko v. Ukraine (no. 43382/02), judgment of 6 September 2007. Rudysh v. Ukraine (no. 18957/03), judgment of 15 November 2007. Tsykhanovskyy v. Ukraine (no. 3572/03), judgment of 6 September 2007. Volovik v. Ukraine (no. 15123/03), judgment of 6 December 2007. Zaichenko v. Ukraine (no. 29875/02), judgment of 22 November 2007.   Bhandari v. United Kingdom (no. 42341/04), judgment of 2 October 2007.     ***   Further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ). [3]   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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] Under Article 44 § 2 (c) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the judgment of a Chamber shall become final when the panel of the Grand Chamber rejects the request to refer under Article 43. [3] These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court.