CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 juin 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .s172EF8F1 { width:208.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 3664/10 Zeynel YÜKSEL against Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19   June 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Ledi Bianku, President,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 December 2009, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Zeynel Yüksel, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Ankara. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A.     The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     On 9 May 2005 the Tarsus Chief Public Prosecutor filed an indictment with the Tarsus Assize Court accusing the applicant of aspersion (“ iftira ”). 5.     On 9 March 2006 the Tarsus Assize Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to seven months’ imprisonment and converted it to a fine. 6.     On 7 April 2008 the Court of Cassation, after obtaining the written opinion of the Chief Public Prosecutor, which was in favour of the applicant, quashed the judgment of 9 March 2006. 7.     On 7 October 2008 the Tarsus Assize Court, adhering to the decision of the Court of Cassation, convicted the applicant once again. 8.     On 1 July 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of 7   October 2008. During the appeal proceedings, the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation delivered his opinion on the merits of the case. Without raising any substantial new issue regarding the merits of the case, he invited the court to uphold the judgment of the first instance court. This opinion was not communicated to the applicant. B.     Relevant domestic law 9.     A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Kılıç and others v. Turkey ((dec.), (no. 33162/10, §§ 10-13, 3 December 2013). COMPLAINTS 10.     The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the non-communication of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s written opinion in the appeal proceedings before the Court of Cassation had violated his right to an adversarial and fair hearing. Under the same heading, the applicant contested that the criminal proceedings had not been fair and his case had not been heard by an independent and impartial tribunal. THE LAW A.     Non-communication of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s written opinion 11.     The applicant complained that the non-communication of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s written opinions during the appeal proceedings before the Court of Cassation had violated his right to an adversarial and fair hearing. In this respect, he relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 12.     The Government rejected the allegation. 13.     The Court notes that it has already examined the same issue in the case of Kılıç and others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 33162/10, §§   19 ‑ 32, 3   December 2013) and considered that the applicants had not suffered a significant disadvantage. Accordingly, it has declared this complaint inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention. 14.     Having in particular regard to the content of the written opinions filed by the Chief Public Prosecutor in the proceedings before the Court of Cassation, the Court finds no particular reasons in the present application which would require it to depart from its findings in the aforementioned case. 15.     In the light of the foregoing, this complaint is inadmissible and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (b) and 4 of the Convention. B.     Other complaints 16.     The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings had not been fair and his case had not been heard by an independent and impartial tribunal. 17.     In the light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that these submissions by the applicant do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its protocols. It follows that this complaint must be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 12 July 2018.   Hasan Bakırcı   Ledi Bianku Deputy Registrar   President