Chiragov and Others v. Armenia (no. 13216/05) – Grand Chamber Admissibility Decision 9 January 2012. Azerbaijani nationals allege that they were forced to leave their homes as a result of actions of Armenia-backed Karabakh forces and have been prevented from returning to their properties by these occupying forces. They complain under Article 1, Protocol 1 of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They further complain, under Article 8, of infringement of the right to respect for their private and family life, under Article 13 of lack of effective remedy, and under Article 14 of discrimination on the basis of ethnic and religious affiliation. After relinquishment of jurisdiction to the Grand Chamber on 9 March 2010, the Court held a hearing in this case on 15 September 2010. On 9 January 2012, the Grand Chamber declared the application admissible.
Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan (no. 40167/06) – Grand Chamber Admissibility Decision 9 January 2012. The applicant, Mr Minas Sargsyan, an ethnic Armenian, was at the time of his death in 2009 a resident of Yerevan. On his behalf, his widow and children pursued his application. Applicant complained before the Court, citing ECHR Article 1 (protection of property) and Article 8 (respect for private and family life), that he was forced by the Azerbaijani Government to flee from his home in 1992 during the conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh (NKAO) and was denied access to his property. He further complained under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Articles 8 (private and family life) and 9 (freedom of religion), at his not being able to visit the graves of close relatives (cemeteries had been destroyed) and that not knowing what happened to them but aware they were in mortal danger caused him severe suffering and distress (visiting and maintenance of cemeteries being one of his religious customs). Finally, he submitted, under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) that only ethnic Armenians living in Azerbaijan were the target of violence, lack of legal redress for loss of property, and destruction of cemeteries.
On 11 March 2010, jurisdiction in the case was relinquished by the Chamber to which it was assigned, in favor of the Grand Chamber, which heard the case on 15 September 2010. On 1 January 2012, the Grand Chamber declared the application partly admissible, finding that the applicant's widow and children were entitled to pursue the application before the Court. The Court declared inadmissible the applicant’s complaint concerning the alleged destruction of Armenian graves in Azerbaijan in general. It declared admissible the remainder of the applicant’s complaints without prejudging the merits of the case. The Court will deliver its judgment at a later date.
Herrmann v. Germany (no. 9300/07) — Grand Chamber hearing 30 November 2011. {Webcast} The applicant, Günter Herrmann, is a German national who was born in 1955 and lives in Stutensee (Germany). As the owner of two landholdings in Rhineland-Palatinate which are smaller than 75 hectares, he is automatically a member of the Langsur hunting association under German Federal Hunting Law (Bundesjagdgesetz). He complains about being obliged to tolerate the hunt on his premises even though he is opposed to hunting on moral grounds. He relies on Articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 11 (freedom of assembly and association), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In a judgment of 20 January 2011, the Court held by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 9 in this case.
Mouvement Raëlien Suisse v. Switzerland (no. 16354/06) — Grand Chamber hearing 16 November 2011. The applicant association is a Swiss non-profit-making association, the national branch of the Raëlian Movement, an organization based in Geneva and founded in 1976 with the stated aim of making initial contact and developing good relations with extraterrestrials. In 2001 it asked the Neuchâtel police headquarters for permission to carry out a poster campaign. Permission was refused, in particular on the grounds that the campaign would be contrary to public order and public policy; the Raëlian Movement had already been the subject of criminal complaints about certain sexual practices involving minors, and it also promoted cloning and eugenics and advocated a political system based on problem-solving and creative intelligence as criteria for governing. Relying on Articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant association complained about the refusal.
In a chamber judgment of 13 January 2011, the Court, noted that this was the first time it had examined whether the domestic authorities should allow an association to impart its ideas through a poster campaign using public space made available to it. The Court further noted that though the posters themselves did not contain offensive material, they referred to the association's website, which make easily available to anyone, including children, offensive material and opinions: for example cloning services offered by the Clonaid company, the possible existence of sexually deviant practices involving under-age children and the threats to public order, safety, and morals posed by "geniocracy" and the criticism of contemporary democracies. The Court held, therefore, that the Swiss government was within the margin of appreciation afforded it by the European Convention with regard to public space and had given sufficient reasons for its actions. There is, therefore, no violation of Article 10 in this matter and no necessity to undertake a separate consideration of Article 9.