CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 2 juillet 1997

.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. 28137/95                       by Ferruh TAHMAZOGLU                       against Turkey        The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 2 July 1997, the following members being present:              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE, President            MM.    J.-C. GEUS                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS                  F. MARTINEZ                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA                  A. ARABADJIEV              Ms.    M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 1 February 1995 by Ferruh Tahmazoglu against Turkey and registered on 4 August 1995 under file No. 28137/95;        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, born in 1947, is a Turkish citizen and works as a tailor in Ünye district belonging to the province of Ordu. He is representing himself before the Commission.        The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.        On 9 March 1989 the applicant was sentenced to one year and eight months' imprisonment for forgery of an official document under Article 342/1 of the Turkish Penal Code by the Ünye Assize Court.        On 10 April 1989, following his conviction, an article with the title, "Cunning moneylender has been caught and sent to prison" was published by a journalist, Kenan Aydin, in a local newspaper, Yeni Hamle. In this article, it was stated that the applicant was known as a cunning moneylender and that he had been sentenced to imprisonment since he had forged a voucher of his debtor in order to get more interest.        The applicant lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation against the judgment of the Ünye Assize Court which had sentenced him to imprisonment.         On 29 November 1989 the sixth chamber of the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the Ünye Assize Court on account of insufficient evidence for conviction.        On 20 February 1990 the Ünye Assize Court adopted the decision of the Court of Cassation and acquitted the applicant on the same grounds.        On 25 October 1990, the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of acquittal of the Ünye Assize Court dated 20 February 1990.        In the meantime, on 21 March 1990 the applicant had filed a suit against the journalist for defamation in the press. He requested the First Instance Court to award compensation for non-pecuniary damage.        On 27 May 1991 the Ünye First Instance Court awarded compensation to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by him.        The journalist appealed against the judgment of the Ünye First Instance Court which on 10 November 1992 was quashed by the fourth chamber of the Court of Cassation. That Court held that the journalist had not defamed the applicant since the article in the local newspaper had been based on true facts at the time when it was published, which was after the conviction of the applicant by the Ünye Assize Court.        On 20 May 1993 the Ünye First Instance Court decided not to adopt the decision of the fourth chamber of the Court of Cassation,   which had quashed its judgment awarding non-pecuniary damage to the applicant. The Ünye First Instance Court, insisting on its previous judgment dated 27 May 1991, held that the journalist had attacked the applicant's reputation through his statements in the newspaper article.          On 2 February 1994 the joint civil chambers of the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Ünye First Instance Court and held that it was unlawful not to adopt the decision of the fourth chamber of the Court of Cassation.        On 29 June 1994 the joint civil chambers of the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's request for rectification of its decision dated 2 February 1994.        On 27 November 1994 the Ünye First Instance Court adopted the decision of the joint civil chambers of the Court of Cassation and refused to award compensation for non-pecuniary damage to the applicant.     COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention that his right to a fair trial was violated due to the decision of the Court of Cassation, which quashed the judgment of the Ünye First Instance Court. In this regard, the applicant submits that the Court of Cassation had approved compensation claims on account of non- pecuniary damage in similar cases.     THE LAW        The applicant complains that he did not have a fair trial before the Court of Cassation as guaranteed by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.        The Commission recalls that under Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention its sole task is to ensure observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the Convention. It is not competent to examine applications concerning errors of law or fact allegedly committed by the competent national authorities, which are competent, in the first place, to interpret and apply domestic law (No. 25062/94, Dec. 18.10.95, D.R. 83 p. 77).        In this case, the Commission notes that the applicant's complaints concern the national courts', in particular the Court of Cassation's, evaluation of the facts and the evidence and the interpretation of the domestic law. The Court of Cassation held that there was no defamation of the applicant's reputation since the article about the applicant had been published in the newspaper after the applicant had been convicted by the Ünye Assize Court. The Commission finds no evidence or basis on which to conclude that the Court of Cassation, in establishing the facts or interpreting the domestic law, acted in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner. Therefore, there is no appearance that the Court of Cassation violated the applicant's right under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.        It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.          For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,          DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.      M.-T. SCHOEPFER                               G.H. THUNE       Secretary                                   President to the Second Chamber                       of the Second Chamber