003-3060898-3396106

221 17.03.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT   23 March 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will deliver its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Cudak v. Lithuania (application no. 15869/02) in a public hearing on Tuesday 23 March 2010 at 10.00 a.m. (local time) in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg.   The press release and the text of the judgment will be available after the hearing on the Court’s Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).   The case concerns an application brought by a Lithuanian national, Alicija Cudak, who was born in 1961 and lives in Vilnius.   In 1999, following a sexual harassment case, Ms Cudak was dismissed by the Polish embassy in Lithuania, where she had been working as a receptionist and telephonist. She brought an action for unfair dismissal before the civil courts, which declined jurisdiction on the basis of the doctrine of State immunity from jurisdiction, as invoked by the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Cudak alleges that she was denied access to a court.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 4 December 2001 and declared admissible on 2 March 2006. On 27 January 2009 the Chamber to which the case had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber under Article 30[1] of the Convention, and a Grand Chamber hearing was held on 1 July 2009.   *** Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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] 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.