issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 137 (2013)
30.04.2013
Cases referred to the Grand Chamber
At its last meeting (29 April 2013), the Grand Chamber panel of five judges decided to
refer three cases and to reject requests to refer 24 other cases1.
The following cases have been referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of
Human Rights:
Hämäläinen v. Finland (application no. 37359/09), concerning a male-to-female
transsexual’s complaint that full official recognition of her new gender was conditional on
her marriage to a woman being turned into a civil partnership;
Anca Mocanu and Others v. Romania (nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08),
concerning the crackdown by the Romanian authorities on the anti-communist
demonstrations which took place in June 1990 in Bucharest; and,
Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia (nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08), concerning the
practice of keeping criminal defendants detained on remand in metal cages during
hearings on their cases.
Referrals accepted
Hämäläinen v. Finland (no. 37359/09)
The applicant, Heli Hämäläinen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1963 and lives in
Helsinki. Ms Hämäläinen underwent male-to-female gender reassignment surgery in
2009 and, having previously changed her first names, wished to obtain a new identity
number that would indicate her female gender in her official documents. However, in
order to do so her marriage to a woman would have had to be turned into a civil
partnership, which she refused to accept.
The applicant complains that making the full recognition of her new gender conditional
on the transformation of her marriage into a civil partnership violates her rights under
Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 12 (right to marry) and
Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In its Chamber judgment of 13 November 2012, the Court held unanimously that there
had been:
- no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention;
- no violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8; and,
- that there was no need to examine the case under Article 12.
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.
The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the request of the applicant.
Anca Mocanu and Others v. Romania (nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08)
The four applicants are Anca Mocanu, Marin Stoica, and Teodor Mărieş, who are
Romanian nationals and were born in 1970, 1948 and 1962 respectively, and the
association ‘21 December 1989’, of which Mr Mărieş is the president and which promotes
the interests of the victims of the violent crackdown against the anti-communist
demonstrations which took place in Romania in December 1989. They all live in
Bucharest (Romania).
The applicants complain of the lack of an effective, impartial and thorough investigation
to identify and punish those responsible for the violent repression of the demonstrations
of 13 and 14 June 1990. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention
on Human Rights, Anca Mocanu complains in particular about the investigation into the
death of her husband, Velicu-Valentin Mocanu, who was shot in the head on 13 June
when the army opened fire on demonstrators who had surrounded the Ministry of the
Interior. Mr Stoica relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of
the European Convention, alleging that he was arrested and taken away when walking to
work on 13 June and, bound and beaten up, woke up the next day in hospital.
Relying also on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant
association complains about the length of the criminal proceedings in which it took part
as a civil party and claimed compensation for the damage caused by the ransacking of
its premises and assaults on its members during the crackdown.
In its Chamber judgment of 13 November 2012, the Court held:
- unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European
Convention as concerned Mrs Anca Mocanu’s complaint about the investigation into her
husband’s death;
- by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture
and of inhuman and degrading treatment) in respect of Mr Stoica; and,
- unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) on
account of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings concerning the ransacking of
the applicant association’s premises and assaults on its members.
The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the request of one of the applicants
(Mr Stoica).
Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia (nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08)
The applicants, Aleksandr Svinarenko and Valentin Slyadnev, are Russian nationals who
were born in 1968 and 1970 respectively and live in the settlement of Sinegorye in the
Yagodninskiy District of the Magadan Region (Russia).
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) of
the European Convention on Human Rights, both applicants, accused of violent crimes
including robbery, allege that they were subjected to degrading treatment when having
to appear in court in a metal cage during their trial. They also complain under
Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention
about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them.
In its Chamber judgment of 11 December 2012, the Court held unanimously that there
had been:
2
- a violation of Article 3; and,
- a violation of Article 6 § 1.
The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the request of the Government.
Requests for referral rejected
Judgments in the following 24 cases are now final2
Requests for referral submitted by the applicants
Gassner v. Austria (application no. 38314/06), judgment of 11 December 2012;
Filipovi v. Bulgaria (no. 24867/04), judgment of 4 December 2012;
Hristozov and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 47039/11 and 358/12), judgment of
13 November 2012;
Nenkova-Lalova v. Bulgaria (no. 35745/05), judgment of 11 December 2012;
Tarbuk v. Croatia (no. 31360/10), judgment of 11 December 2012;
Čadek and Others v. the Czech Republic (nos. 31933/08, 60084/08, 6185/09,
46696/09, 52792/09, 53518/09, 10185/10, 42151/10, 3167/11 and 20939/11),
judgment of 22 November 2012;
Salvatore Coppola and Others v. Italy (nos. 5179/05, 14611/05, 29701/06, 9041/05
and 8239/05), judgment of 18 December 2012;
Timofejevi v. Latvia (no. 45393/04), judgment of 11 December 2012;
Vikulov and Others v. Latvia (no. 16870/03), judgment of 25 September 2012;
Spyra and Kranczkowski v. Poland (no. 19764/07), judgment of 11 December 2012;
I.G. and Others v. Slovakia (no. 15966/04), judgment of 13 November 2012;
Shala v. Switzerland (no. 52873/09), judgment of 15 November 2012;
Halil Yüksel Akıncı and Others v. Turkey (no. 39125/04), judgment of 11 December
2012;
Çelik (no. 3) v. Turkey (no. 36487/07), judgment of 15 November 2012;
Disk and Kesk v. Turkey (no. 38676/08), judgment of 27 November 2012;
Beggs v. the United Kingdom (no. 25133/06), judgment of 6 November 2012;
Van Colle v. the United Kingdom (no. 7678/09), judgment of 13 November 2012.
Requests for referral submitted by the Government
V.K. v. Croatia (no. 38380/08), judgment of 27 November 2012;
Sampani and Others v. Greece (no. 59608/09), judgment of 11 December 2012;
Ghiurău v. Romania (no. 55421/10), judgment of 20 November 2012;
Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia (nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and
42509/10), judgment of 18 December 2012;
Tangiyev v. Russia (no. 27610/05), judgment of 11 December 2012;
M.M. v. the United Kingdom (nos. 24029/07), judgment of 13 November 2012.
Requests for referral submitted by the applicant and by the Government
R.R. and Others v. Hungary (no. 19400/11), judgment of 4 December 2012.
2 Under Article 44 § 2 (c) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the judgment of a Chamber becomes
final when the panel of the Grand Chamber rejects the request to refer under Article 43.
3
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.
Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on
www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here:
www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHR_Press.
Press contacts
[email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)
Jean Conte (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)
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.
4