CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 11 octobre 1994

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 24761/94                       by Ayse Nur ZARAKOLU                       against Turkey         The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 11 October 1994, the following members being present:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  S. TRECHSEL                  A. WEITZEL                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            MM.    F. MARTINEZ                  C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  G.B. REFFI                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  D. SVÁBY                  G. RESS              Mr.    H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 29 July 1994 by Ayse Nur Zarakolu against Turkey and registered on 3 August 1994 under file No. 24761/94;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant is a Turkish citizen, born in Antalya. She is the director and owner of a publishing house in Istanbul. She is represented before the Commission by Professor Kevin Boyle and Ms. Francoise Hampson, both university teachers at the University of Essex, England.         The facts, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:         In July 1991 the publishing house owned by the applicant published a book by the Turkish sociologist Dr. Ismail Besikci, entitled "The Republican Popular Party's Program (1931) and the Kurdish Problem".         On 8 August 1991 the Public Prosecutor of Istanbul State Security Court issued an indictment against both Ismail Besikci and the applicant and charged them, as the author and the publisher of the book, with making propaganda against the indivisibility of the State. The Public Prosecutor referred to the provisions of the Anti-Terror Law. Pursuant to the indictment, criminal proceedings were initiated before the State Security Court of Istanbul against the applicant and the author.         On 1 July 1993 the Court held that the applicant and the author were guilty of the offences with which they were charged. The applicant was sentenced to five months' imprisonment and fined 41,666,666 Turkish Lira.         The applicant's legal representative challenged the judgment of the State Security Court before the Supreme Court. On 5 November 1993 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. This decision was communicated to the applicant's legal representative on 10 November 1993.         On 3 January 1994 the applicant applied to the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, through the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Istanbul State Security Court, and requested that the case be brought before the Supreme Court for rectification of the judgment (tashihi karar). On 31 January 1994 the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court rejected this request.         At the time the application was presented to the Commission, the applicant was in Bayrampasa prison to serve her sentence.   COMPLAINTS          The applicant complains, under Article 7 of the Convention, that she was held guilty of a criminal offence on account of an act which did not constitute a criminal offence under Turkish law at the time when it was committed. She asserts that until her case it had always been understood that a publication as in her case, would not fall within the definition of "a periodical", for the dissemination of which the law foresees the imprisonment of the owner or the director of the publishing house.         The applicant further complains that there has been an interference with her right to freedom of expression by public authority in that her right to impart information and ideas as guaranteed by Article 10 has been undermined by her conviction for publishing a book.   THE LAW         The applicant complains that she was convicted of a criminal offence on account of an act which did not constitute a criminal offence under Turkish law at the time when it was committed (Article 7 (Art. 7) of the Convention). She further complains that there has been an interference by a public authority with her right of freedom of expression (Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention).         The Commission considers that the applicant's petition to the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court requesting him to bring the case before the Supreme Court for the rectification of the judgment does not constitute an effective remedy under domestic law (e.g. No. 18549/91, Sever v. Turkey, Dec.12.2.92; No. 22273/93, Varli v. Turkey, Dec. 20.1.94).         The final decision regarding the applicant's conviction and sentence is accordingly the decision of the Supreme Court which was given on 5 November 1993 and communicated to the applicant on 10 November 1993.   The present application was submitted to the Commission on 29 July 1994, that is more than six months after the date of this decision.         Furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted or suspended the six months period provided for in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.         It follows that the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the Commission             President of the Commission          (H.C. KRÜGER)                          (C.A. NØRGAARD)