CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 20 octobre 1995

.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. 23144/93                       by     1. Gurbetelli ERSÖZ                             2. Fahri Ferda ÇETIN                             3. Yasar KAYA                             4. Ülkem Basin ve Yayincilik Sanayi                              Ticaret Ltd.                       against Turkey         The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 20 October 1995, the following members being present:              MM.    S. TRECHSEL, President                  H. DANELIUS                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            MM.    F. MARTINEZ                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  B. MARXER                  G.B. REFFI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  C. BÎRSAN                  P. LORENZEN              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 9 December 1993 by the above applicants against Turkey and registered on 21 December 1993 under file No. 23144/93;         Having regard to :   -      the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of       the Commission;   -      the Commission's decision of 6 July 1994 to communicate the       application ;   -      the observations submitted by the respondent Government on       5 December 1994 and the observations in reply submitted by the       applicants on 9 March 1995;   -      the parties' oral submissions at the hearing on 20 October 1995;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The first applicant, Gurbetelli Ersöz, born in 1965, was the editor of the newspaper Özgür Gündem, which was published in istanbul. The second applicant Fahri Ferda Çetin, born in 1960, was the assistant editor in chief of the newspaper. The third applicant Yasar Kaya, born in 1938, is a journalist. He was, together with the fourth applicant, the owner of the newspaper.         The applicants are represented before the Commission by Professor Kevin Boyle and Ms. Françoise Hampson, both of the University of Essex, England.   A.     The particular circumstances of the case         The facts of the case have not been agreed by the parties.         The applicants claim that the following events relating to this case have occurred:         Özgür Gündem was a daily newspaper which had been published in istanbul since 30 May 1992, with a national circulation of some thousand copies and a further international circulation. It was a Turkish language publication, seeking to reflect Turkish Kurdish opinion. Özgür Gündem incorporated its predecessor, the weekly Yeni Ülke, which was published from 1990 to 1992. In view of the various actions set out below, Özgür Gündem was obliged to cease publication some time after the present application had been lodged with the Commission. Özgür Gündem was first succeeded by another newspaper, Özgür Ülke, which was however also the subject of serious attacks and other measures.         The applicants claim that the Government of Turkey have, directly or indirectly, sought to hinder, prevent and render impossible the production and distribution of Özgür Gündem. This has been done by the following measures:         - by encouragement of or acquiescence to unlawful killings and       forced disappearances;         - by harassment and intimidation of journalists and distributors;         - by means of unjustified legal proceedings;         - by failure and refusal to provide any or any adequate       protection for journalists and distributors when their lives were       clearly in danger, and despite requests to do so;         - by enacting and implementing the Anti-Terrorism Act whose       provisions are so vague and potentially all-inclusive as to       violate the letter and spirit of Article 10 of the Convention.          Newsagents, distributors and newsboys have also been threatened and attacked. From 15 January 1993 until 26 April 1993 Özgür Gündem was forced to cease publication. Since 26 April 1993, during a period of 68 days, 41 copies of Özgür Gündem were ordered to be seized. In early 1993 a delegation from Özgür Gündem visited the Interior Minister, ismet Sengün, and the Government spokesman, Akin Gönen, and the situation facing the newspaper was fully explained. Nevertheless, since that meeting, three more persons, including two distributors, connected with Özgür Gündem have been killed.         Seven persons connected with Özgür Gündem have been killed by persons unknown. They are the following: (a) Yahya Orhan, a reporter for Özgür Gündem, who was shot dead on 31 July 1992; (b) Hüseyin Deniz, a member of the staff of Özgür Gündem, who was shot dead on 8 August 1992 at about 7.45 a.m.; (c) Musa Anter, a regular columnist for Özgür Gündem, who was shot dead on 20 September 1992; (d) Hafiz Akdemir, a member of the Özgür Gündem staff, who was shot dead on 8 June 1992; (e) Cengiz Altun, a reporter of Yeni Ülke, who was shot dead on 24 February 1992; (f) Kemal Kiliç, the Sanliurfa representative of Özgür Gündem, who was killed on 18 February 1993; (g) Ferhat Tepe, the Bitlis correspondent of Özgür Gündem, who was found dead on 4 August 1993 in Sivrice, in the Elazig province, after being abducted on 28 July 1993 in Bitlis.         Moreover, the distribution of Özgür Gündem has been prevented by arson attacks, murder and threats, on some occasions in circumstances which indicate the complicity or acquiescence of the Turkish authorities.         In this respect, reference is made to the following events :         (a) In Diyarbakir: (i) on 15 November 1992, an arson attack by unknown persons on a newsstand (subject of Application No. 22495/93, Yasa v. Turkey); (ii) on 16 November 1992, an arson attack by unknown persons on a newsstand; (iii) on 19 November 1992, stationer's premises burnt down by unknown persons after threats concerning the sale of Özgür Gündem; (iv) on 20 November 1992, 22 newsagents refused to sell Özgür Gündem because of the risks involved; (v) on 23 November 1992, an attack by three armed men on Özgür Gündem's office chief and a reporter; (vi) on 29 November 1992, a newsagent attacked with clubs by two unknown persons; (vii) on 16 December 1992, a newsagent shot dead by unknown persons; (viii) in November 1992, warning by a policeman not to sell Özgür Gündem and Yeni Ülke; (ix) in early 1993, a newsboy prevented by police officers from selling Özgür Gündem ; (x) on 15 June 1993, the owner of a newsstand shot dead after being threatened by persons unknown and told not to sell Özgür Gündem; (xi) about 26 September 1993, a newsboy attacked with a knife by persons unknown as he was distributing Özgür Gündem; (xii) on 27 September 1993, a person killed; (xiii) in September 1993, a person who distributed Özgür Gündem seriously injured when he was attacked with meat cleavers by two unknown persons close to a police station, but without any intervention by the police.         (b) In Bismil: in December 1992, the main newsagent's life threatened by persons unknown if he did not stop selling Özgür Gündem, the result being that he stopped selling the newspaper.         (c) In Silvan: on 18 November 1992, the chief newsagent threatened by persons unknown, the result being that he stopped selling Özgür Gündem.         (d) In Batman: (i) on 13 November 1992, the chief newsagent received death threats by persons unknown and stopped selling Özgür Gündem; (ii) on 21 November 1992, a taxi driver burnt alive in his vehicle while distributing Özgür Gündem; (iii) on 2 January 1993, six persons selling Özgür Gündem stopped and beaten up, with their papers confiscated, by persons unknown, but in full sight of the police who did not act.         (e) In Ergani: (i) in early 1993, the main distributor threatened by persons unknown and stopped selling Özgür Gündem; (ii) in early 1993, confiscation by the police of all copies of Özgür Gündem which were being taken to Ergani by minibus; (iii) thereafter, despite assurances by the District Governor and the Police Chief, boys selling Özgür Gündem attacked with a meat cleaver.         (f) In Adiyaman: main newsagent threatened, and harassed by the police.         (g) In Mardin: main newsagents in Mardin, Kiziltepe and Mazidagi threatened; arson attack in Mazidagi.         (h) In Elazig: (i) main newsagent threatened; arson attack on stationers; (ii) newsagent who applied to Public Prosecutor for protection against attack was asked to sign a paper confirming that he sold Özgür Gündem because that was supposed to reflect his views.         (i) In Bingöl: (i) on 17 November 1992, a vehicle belonging to newsagent destroyed by fire; (ii) a journalist employed by Özgür Gündem arrested and threatened; (iii) on 24 November 1992, arson attack against a tea shop where Özgür Gündem was sold.         (j) In Yüksekova: in early October 1993, newsagency selling Özgür Gündem bombed by Special Teams at about 3 a.m..         Özgür Gündem has also been the subject of legal proceedings which allegedly can only have had the ulterior purpose of closing or hindering the newspaper and from which there is no effective appeal. Reference is made to the following events:         (a) From 31 May 1992 to April 1993, confiscation orders were issued against 39 out of 228 issues of the newspaper, either under unspecified provisions, or under Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act and Article 36 of the Turkish Criminal Code.         (b) Between April and July 1993, a further 41 issues of the newspaper were confiscated. The Istanbul State Security Court ruled, inter alia, that Özgür Gündem had attempted to portray Turkish citizens as Kurds and that this was an "act of separatism". The Court also found that the use of the words "Kurd" and "Kurdistan" was a breach of the Constitution in which Turkey is defined as a unitary State.         (c) Cases were filed in the istanbul State Security Court as follows:         (i) on 7 June 1992, against the applicant, Yasar Kaya, under Article 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act; (ii) on 14 August 1992, against Yasar Kaya and two others under Article 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act and Article 36 of the Criminal Code; (iii) on 24 August 1992 and 25 August 1992, against Yasar Kaya and another person under Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act and Article 36 of the Criminal Code; (iv) on 15 September 1992, against Yasar Kaya and two others under Articles 2 and 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act; (v) on 18 September 1992, against Yasar Kaya and two others under Articles 3 and 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act; (vi) on 24 September 1992, against Yasar Kaya and one other person under Article 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act; (vii) on 27 September 1992, against Yasar Kaya and one other person under Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act and Article 36 of the Criminal Code.         (d) A press release by the Editorial Board of Özgür Gündem on 3 July 1993 announced that the newspaper was charged with offences punishable by fines totalling TL 8,617,441,000 ($736,500), and prison terms ranging in total from 155 years and 9 months to 493 years and 4 months.         (e) On 12 July 1993, the Istanbul Court of First Instance decided to ban Özgür Gündem on the ground that "the Chief Editor of the newspaper Davut Karadag did not communicate his new address to the Istanbul Governor". On 15 July 1993, Mr. Karadag was arrested when attending the State Security Court to give evidence for thirty articles published in Özgür Gündem on 12, 13, 14 and 15 July 1993, which were said to have "disseminated separatist propaganda". On 15 September 1993, Yasar Kaya was arrested and subsequently charged for making an allegedly illegal speech in Iraq. When the application was lodged with the Commission, Yasar Kaya was still in custody.         (f) The applicants further refer to 170 ongoing prosecutions of Özgür Gündem and its employees.         (g) A case, which has been observed by certain human rights non-governmental organisations, concerns an article by Mr. Ahmet Alkan, published on 24 September 1992 and entitled "From the dialogue of arms to political propaganda". In respect of this article, Özgür Gündem was charged with "making separatist propaganda" and "praising the PKK", contrary to Articles 7 and 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act. On 15 July 1993, the State Prosecutor brought further charges under Supplementary Article 2 of the Press Law.         (h) Furthermore, in respect of 48 out of 114 issues of Yeni Ülke there were confiscations or prosecutions. In 1990, 13 issues were confiscated under Article 148 of the Criminal Code and 6 under Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act. In 1991, 20 issues were confiscated under the Anti-Terrorism Act and in 1992 9 issues under that Act. In the case of 21 prosecutions (out of 70, the remaining being pending) Yeni Ülke was acquitted; in no case was it convicted. The effect of so many prosecutions was eventually to drive Yeni Ülke out of business.         (i) Finally, the police confiscated all Istanbul office administrative documents, archives, library facilities on 10 December 1993.         The applicants further point to the numerous cases of detention and abduction of persons employed by Özgür Gündem, which have affected the activities of the newspaper. They refer to the following cases:         (a) Remanded in custody: (i) Yasar Kaya, remanded in custody on       15 September 1993 and still there when the application was       introduced; (ii) Nezahat Özem, remanded from 17 July to       14 September 1993; (iii) Mehmet Yazici, remanded from 20 July to       16 September 1993; (iv) Salih Tekin, remanded on 19 August 1993;       (v) Haydar Geçilmez and Mehmet Sonol, Diyarbakir correspondents       of the newspaper, arrested on 11 and 13 March 1993 respectively;       (vi) Serdar Uzun and Besir Ant, Cizre correspondents of the       newspaper, arrested on 12 and 14 March 1993 respectively; (vii)       Ahmet H. Akkaya, a news editor for Özgür Gündem, arrested on       25 May 1993; (viii) Tacettin Demir, a reporter in Diyadin,       detained on 13 July 1993; (ix) Davut Karadag, an editor, taken       into custody on 15 July 1993 when attending the State Security       Court to give evidence; (x) Nezahat Özmen, a reporter, seven       months pregnant, taken into custody on 16 July 1993; (xi) Mehmet       Sah Yildiz, detained on 12 September 1993; (xii) Cevzet Birkay,       detained on 12 September 1993; (xiii) all the employees of the       istanbul office of the newspaper, including its lawyers, taken       into custody on 10 December 1993.         (b) Abduction: Aysel Malkaç, a reporter in Istanbul, abducted by       plain-clothes police on 7 August 1993 just after she had left the       Özgür Gündem building, her whereabouts being unknown when the       application was introduced.         After Özgür Gündem had ceased publication and been succeeded by       Özgür Ülke, the latter newspaper was subject to the following       actions:         (a) On 3 December 1994, its four-storey printing press and headquarters in Istanbul and its Ankara office were bombed; one person was killed and 18 injured.         (b) In the first week of January 1995, the National Security Council decided that the paper should be prevented from printing, but by legal means.         (c) From 6 January 1995, police started to wait outside the printing press to seize the paper as soon as it was printed.         (d) On 2 February 1995, the istanbul First Justice Court ordered confiscation of all copies pursuant to the Press Law.         The applicants further refer to a number of statements by non-governmental organisations which have criticised the actions of the Turkish State in relation to the press, and Özgür Gündem in particular.         The Government state the following as regards the events alleged by the applicants.         The criminal incidents against the workers of the Özgür Gündem newspaper are the consequence of multi-terrorist acts which the Government combat with the purpose of safeguarding the right to life. No Government agent or officer was involved in these incidents, no security operation was carried out, nor did an armed clash occur. These incidents were the result of attacks by unknown perpetrators.         At the time of the application on 9 December 1993, 69 cases presented by the applicants regarding the legal proceedings against the Özgür Gündem newspaper and its journalists were pending.   As of 20 October 1995, the date of the hearing before the Commission, 39 measures had been approved by the Court of Cassation, one decision had been reversed by this Court and 29 cases were still pending before it. The public prosecutor's closure requests, according to Supplementary Article 2 of the Press Code No. 5680, were not considered or decided in 38 cases;   they were rejected by the courts in 9 cases; and a temporary closure decision was given in 20 cases. Of these 20 closure decisions which concerned a period between three days and one month, 3 decisions were for a month, 15 decisions were for 15 days and 2 decisions were for 10 days.         The second State Security Court of istanbul in its decision of 14 March 1994 (files Nos. 93/237 and 178) stated that the mere use of the words "Kurds" or "Kurdistan" in a newspaper article does not violate a penal rule.   The Court concluded that "although in the two news articles the words 'Kurds' and 'Kurdistan' are used frequently, the theme and the context of the articles as a whole clearly show that they were written with the aim of informing the public.   Therefore, the elements of separatist propaganda are not present." The court then decided that the journalists Kaya and Karadag should be acquitted of charges of separatist propaganda.         In its decision on 1 September 1994 regarding an article published in the newspaper Özgür Gündem of 25 July 1993 the Istanbul Second State Security Court discussed the application of Article 10 of the Convention in detail and cited the fact that although the Convention is accepted as an instrument of national law, conditions in the south-east of Turkey oblige the court to consider the clear and present danger created by the publication in the case as inciting hatred among members of society and thus violating Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The court clearly stated that in the application of Article 10 of the Convention, the restrictions stated in paragraph 2 of the Article should be kept in mind.         In his letter dated 11 November 1994 sent to the Ministry of Justice, the Public Prosecutor of the istanbul State Security Court stated that none of the judgments pronounced against the Özgür Gündem newspaper (in 69 cases referred to by the applicants) had been executed.   B.     Relevant domestic law         Constitutional Law         <Translation>         Article 28 :   The press is free, and shall not be censored.       The establishment of a printing house shall not be subject       to prior permission and to the deposit of a financial       guarantee.         ...         The State shall take the necessary measures to ensure the       freedom of the press and freedom of information.         ...         Anyone who writes or prints any news or articles which       threaten the internal or external security of the State or       the indivisible integrity of the State with its territory       and nation, which tend to incite offences, riots or       insurrection, or which refer to classified State secrets       and anyone who prints or transmits such news or articles to       others for the above purposes, shall be held responsible       under the law relevant to these offences.         Distribution may be suspended as a preventive measure by a       decision of a judge, or in the event delay is deemed       prejudicial by the competent authority designated by law.       The authority suspending distribution shall notify the       competent judge of its decision within twenty-four hours at       the latest.   The order suspending distribution shall become       null and void unless upheld by the competent judge within       forty-eight hours at the latest.         No ban shall be placed on the reporting of events, except       by a decision of a judge issued to ensure the proper       functioning of the judiciary, within the limits specified       by law.         Periodicals and non-periodical publications may be seized       by a decision of a judge in cases of ongoing investigation       or prosecution of offences prescribed by law; and in       situations where delay could endanger the indivisible       integrity of the State with its territory and nation,       national security, public order or public morals, and for       the prevention of offences by order of the competent       authority designated by law.   The authority issuing the       seizure order shall notify the competent judge of its       decision within twenty-four hours at the latest.   The       seizure order shall become null and void unless upheld by       the competent court within forty-eight hours at the latest.         The general common provisions shall apply when seizure and       confiscation of periodicals and non-periodicals for reasons       of criminal investigation and prosecution take place.         Periodicals published in Turkey may be temporarily       suspended by court sentence if found guilty of publishing       material which contravenes the indivisible integrity of the       State with its territory and nation, the fundamental       principles of the Republic, national security and public       morals.   Any publication which clearly bears the       characteristics of being the continuation of the suspended       periodical is prohibited; and shall be seized by a decision       of a judge.         Article 29 :   Publication of periodicals or non-periodicals       shall not be subject to prior authorisation or to the       deposit of a financial guarantee.         To publish a periodical it shall suffice to submit the       information and documents prescribed by law to the       competent authority designated by law.   If the information       and documents submitted are found to be in contravention of       the law, the competent authority shall apply to the       competent court for suspension of publication.         The publication of periodicals, the conditions of       publication, the financial resources and rules relevant to       the profession of journalism shall be regulated by law.       The law shall not impose any political, economic, financial       and technical conditions obstructing or making difficult       the free dissemination of news, thoughts or beliefs.         Periodicals shall have equal access to the means and       facilities of the State, other public corporate bodies and       their agencies.         Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorist Law (before the amendment       of 27 October 1995)         <Translation>         Propaganda against the indivisible unity of the State         ... written and oral propaganda and assemblies, meetings       and demonstrations aimed at damaging the indivisible unity       of the State of the Turkish Republic, its territory and as       a nation are forbidden, regardless of the method, intention       and ideas behind it.   Those conducting such an activity are       to be punished by a sentence of between 2 and 5 years'       imprisonment and a fine of between 50 million and 100       million Turkish Lira.         If the offence of propaganda as mentioned in the paragraph       above is committed by a periodical according to Article 3       of the Press Law No. 5680, the publishers are to be       punished additionally by the following fines:   for the       periodicals issued in less than monthly intervals the fine       shall be 90% of the average real sale of the previous       month, for printed works that are not periodicals or       periodicals starting business the fine shall be 90% of the       monthly sale of the most selling daily periodical.   In any       case the fine may not be less than 100 million Turkish       Lira.   Responsible editors of these periodicals are to be       given half the sentences of the publishers and a sentence       of between six months and two years' imprisonment.   COMPLAINTS         The applicants submit that the long list of incidents, ranging from murder of journalists and other workers in the mass media, disappearance and abduction, to threats of death and violence, threatened and actual prosecution and seizure and imposition of heavy fines, constitute an assault on the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press. They complain of violations of Articles 10 and 14 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in that their right to receive and impart information and ideas has been grossly violated, and in that they have suffered confiscation of their property, all on discriminatory grounds. They also refer to the failure or refusal of the State organs to protect the journalists and distributors of the newspaper.         The applicants consider that the violations of which they complain are continuing and that the six months' rule is therefore not applicable. They also submit that they have exhausted domestic remedies by making repeated complaints about the matters which are the subject of this application and by requesting protection pursuant to the Turkish Constitution, but without any effective response by the Turkish Government. In addition, on 7 September 1992, Özgür Gündem has claimed compensation in one case, but so far without result. In the applicants' view, remedies have proved to be ineffective and are likely to prove ineffective. The applicants also refer to arguments put forward in Application No. 21895/93, Çagirga v. Turkey.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 9 December 1994 and registered on 21 December 1993.         On   6 July 1994, the Commission decided to communicate the application to the Government and to ask for written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.         The Government's observations were submitted on 5 December 1994. The applicants submitted further information on 20 and 21 April 1994, 2 and 22 August 1994, 11 October 1994, 23 and 25 November 1994, 7 December 1994 respectively. They submitted observations in reply on 9 March 1995 after one extension in the time-limit.         On 10 April 1995, the Commission decided to invite the parties to make oral submissions on the admissibility and merits of the application at a hearing fixed for 20 October 1995.         At the hearing on 20 October 1995, the Government were represented by Mr. B. Çaglar, Agent, Mr. S. Alpaslan, Mr. M. Özmen, Ms. D. Akçay, Mr. T. Özkarol, Mr. A. Kurudal, Mr. A. Kaya and Mrs. S. Eminagaoglu, all counsel. The applicants were represented by Mr. W. Bowring, barrister at law, Mr. O. Ergin, advocate, and Mr. M. Yildiz, legal adviser.   THE LAW         The applicants allege that a number of Özgür Gündem newspaper journalists have been murdered, attacked, detained, abducted or threatened and that newspaper distributors or vendors have been attacked or threatened, and that many decided, because of threats, not to continue distributing or selling the newspaper. They also complain of legal prosecutions against the editors and owners of the newspaper, seizure of numerous copies and imposition of heavy fines by the tribunals. The applicants allege violations of Articles 10 (art. 10) (freedom of expression) and 14 (the prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (the right to property).         The Government argue that the application is inadmissible for the following reasons:         i. the application is an actio popularis, since the individual applicants are not victims of any violation of the Convention;         ii. the applicants have not exhausted domestic remedies;         iii. alternatively, the applicants did not observe the six months' time-limit;         iv. the application is anyway manifestly ill-founded.         i. Victim status         As to the allegations under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention, the Government submit that the application is abstract in nature and constitutes an actio popularis, the individual applicants not being actual victims of the alleged violations. The allegations stating that the Turkish Press Code and certain provisions of the Struggle Against Terrorism Act are in violation of the Convention also cannot be the basis of an application.         The applicants point out that they are plainly the proper applicants to bring the case being the owners and editors of the Özgür Gündem newspaper.         The Commission notes that the applicants complain about a large number of acts directed against the newspaper which they represent as owners and editors. They can therefore claim to be victims of violations of the Convention in this respect. Consequently, there is no basis for declaring the application inadmissible on this ground.         ii. Exhaustion of domestic remedies         The Government submit that the applicants have failed to comply with the requirement under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention to exhaust domestic remedies before lodging an application with the Commission.   They note that the applicants, in regard to most of the acts of which they complain, have not availed themselves of domestic remedies, or at least have not exhausted these remedies. The Government also argue that court decisions dealing with Press Code violations are open to constitutionality objections.         The applicants state that at the date of the application and thereafter they were faced with a continuing flood of prosecutions. They consider that these prosecutions constituted continuous violations. As to the possibility of making constitutionality objections, the applicants contend that the Government did not specify whether there have been any cases in which such objections have proved successful.         The Commission notes the following:         It is true that the applicants' complaints refer to a series of incidents and judicial acts and that, at least in regard to many of these acts, the domestic remedies have not been exhausted.         However, the Commission interprets the application as not being primarily concerned with individual acts or events but with a consistent pattern of actions taken over a relatively long period of time and aimed at preventing the Özgür Gündem newspaper from being published. Whatever remedies may be available in regard to individual acts or decisions, the Commission cannot find it established that there was in Turkey any remedy which would have been effective in changing the general situation of which the applicants complain.         The Commission recalls in this respect that only those remedies which are capable of remedying the criticised state of affairs directly, and not merely indirectly, are to be considered as effective (No. 14807/89, Dec. 12.02.92, D.R. 72 p. 148).         Furthermore, as to an appeal to the Constitutional Court, the Commission recalls that the remedies which must be used have to be effectively accessible to those concerned. In the present case, it considers that such an appeal does not constitute an accessible remedy in that it is the exclusive competence of the court examining the case to decide whether an objection of unconstitutionality appears sufficiently serious to merit referral to the Constitutional Court (Nos. 14116/88, 14117/88, Dec. 11.05.89, D.R. 61 p. 250).         In the absence of remedies which would be effective in regard to the specific complaints brought by the applicants, the Commission concludes that the application cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under Articles 26 and 27 para. 3 (Art. 26, 27-3) of the Convention.         iii. The six months' rule         The Government contend that the applicants have failed to comply with the second requirement of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, namely that of lodging the application within six months of the final domestic decision or, if none, within six months of the events of which complaints are made. They point out that most of the incidents referred to by the applicants do not fall within the period of six months.         The applicants argue that they complain of a series of continuing violations.          The Commission refers to its considerations under point ii above. It recalls that the applicants' complaints relate to a continuing general situation and that in such circumstances the six months period runs from the termination of the situation concerned (No. 6852/74, Dec. 5.12.78 D.R. 15, p. 5). The last incidents of which the applicants complain occurred less than six months before the application was lodged, and according to the applicants the situation in which Özgür Gündem found itself continued even after the application had been introduced. In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the Government's objection based on the six months rule must be rejected.         iv. As regards the merits         According to the Government, the reality of each criminal incident against those working for Özgür Gündem should be checked before a conclusion can be reached. Such a conclusion must be based on official records regarding the investigations undertaken.         The Government point out that one of the well-known methods of terrorist organisations is to murder or attack personalities whose deaths and injuries would give rise to rage in society and might even mobilise some groups against the Government. It is a common problem of countries which face terrorist acts that arresting and penalising the perpetrators of such acts is almost impossible due to the impossibility of collecting evidence because of the fear of terrorists.         The Government notes furthermore that the newspaper Özgür Gündem has never been closed down indefinitely pursuant to an all-inclusive judgment. Each judicial decision was confined to a specific published text. In the articles, reports and interviews in question, terrorist attacks are described as warfare and a legend of liberation whereas, on the other hand, security operations are presented as war against civilians. In one text, it was even announced that the only way to make Turkey realise the facts was to fight with arms. In another text, terrorists were directed to a security officer and given his address and telephone number.         The Government maintain that when political opposition ideas, news, comments and debates on matters of public concern are in question, the Government of Turkey welcome the work of the media as a sine qua non condition for the democratic system. At present, 502 different newspapers and 750 periodicals are in circulation in Turkey. In view of the abundance of media sources, journalists or writers have never been discouraged for fear of sanctions from imparting opinions on issues of public concern.         The Government submit that the people of Turkey are not alien to offensive, shocking or disturbing information or opinions disseminated by the media. No journalist or author is penalised for that. However, the freedom to publish this kind of information and expressions should be stopped when they constitute propaganda of terrorism.         According to the Government, the present case is different from the other Article 10 (Art. 10) cases examined by the European Court of Human Rights. It concerns incitement to hatred, provocation of terrorism and inducement of separatism. The texts which appeared in Özgür Gündem created an imminent danger of violence by inducing, provoking and agitating terrorists and their supporters. The terrorism in Turkey is not a potential but an actual danger.   Therefore, such provocative and disturbing texts serve to add fuel to the flames, especially in sensitive circumstances.         The applicants maintain that their Convention claims are substantiated. They contend in particular that the Government, in their submissions to the Commission, have not dealt with any of the incidents indicated in the application.         The applicants contend that the provisions of existing Turkish legislation applicable in the present case, in particular Articles 1 and 8 of the Anti-Terrorist Law, are so broad and so vague that they could be applied by the respondent Government in such a way as to inhibit and suppress freedom of expression in a manner which cannot be explained or justified within the framework of the Convention.         The Commission considers, in the light of the parties' submissions, that the case raises complex issues of law and fact under the Convention, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits of the application as a whole. The Commission concludes, therefore, that the application is not manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been established.         For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,         DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the       merits of the case.         Secretary to the Commission        President of the Commission                  (H.C. KRÜGER)                     (S. TRECHSEL)