CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 2 décembre 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s331C3E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s5C8B8BE3 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s211664BF { font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s74C12B71 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s8DD1D08A { vertical-align:top } .s9538EC41 { height:0pt } .sEC117C8C { width:82.35pt } .s601A9A06 { width:58.05pt } .s601A9A4C { width:58.25pt } .s84F5C1B { width:66.75pt } .s70AC50B8 { width:1.55pt } .s833ED7B5 { width:0.5pt } .s661AC7EA { width:63pt } .sDF70637B { width:1pt } .s905A50B8 { width:3.15pt } .sAB2AE2F5 { width:55.1pt } .sA3A6D7B5 { width:4.1pt } .sE6A77C68 { width:62.05pt } .sA00A50B8 { width:4.05pt } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB6FDB88 { color:#0000ff } Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)307 [1]     Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 49 cases against Turkey mainly concerning the failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion before the Court of Cassation and/or the lack of an oral hearing   (see details in Appendix)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases mainly concern the breach of the applicants’ right to a fair trial on account of the failure to communicate to the applicants the prosecutor’s opinion before the Court of Cassation and/or lack of an oral hearing in compensation proceedings (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1) and also, in some cases, late payment of compensation granted by domestic courts (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments where applicable (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - general measures preventing similar violations;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)307   Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in 49 cases against Turkey mainly concerning the lack of an oral hearing and the failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion before the Court of Cassation and/or the lack of an oral hearing in compensation proceedings   Introductory case summary   These cases concern the breach of the applicants’ right to a fair trial on account of the non-communication to the applicants of the written opinion submitted by the Principal Public Prosecutor to the Court of Cassation on the merits, and/or the absence of an oral hearing (violations of Article 6§1 (in some cases in combination with Article 6§3)).   The cases of Apaydın, Deniz Faruk, Göktaş Ali, Göktaş and, Kılıç and Korkut also concern the late payment of compensation granted by domestic courts (violations of Article 1, Protocol No. 1).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Case and Application Judgment of Final on Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total Paid on GÖÇ Mehmet 36590/97 11/07/02 11/07/02 -- 2   000 EUR 1   862,03 EUR 3   862,03 EUR 09/10/2002 ÖZATA Zahide Songül 19578/02 20/10/2005 15/02/2006 -- -- 1   000 EUR 1   000 EUR 15/08/2006 DİNDAR 32456/96 20/12/2005 20/03/2006 -- 1   000 EUR 210 EUR 1   210 EUR 01/06/2006 AYÇOBAN and others 42208/02+ 22/12/2005 22/03/2006 -- -- 1   000 EUR 1   000 EUR 21/06/2006 DOĞAN Halis 75946/01 07/02/2006 07/05/2006 -- -- 315 EUR 315 EUR 20/07/2006 IŞIK Mehmet Fehmi 62226/00 21/02/2006 21/05/2006 -- -- 1   000 EUR 1   000 EUR 02/08/2006 TOSUN 4124/02 28/02/2006 28/05/2006 No just satisfaction awarded HOCAOĞULLARI 77109/01 07/03/2006 07/06/2006 -- -- 1   000 EUR 1   000 EUR 31/08/2006 ŞAHİN Çağdaş 28137/02 11/04/2006 11/07/2006 -- -- 1   000 EUR 1   000 EUR 10/10/2006 KÖMÜRCÜ 77432/01 22/06/2006 22/09/2006 -- -- 1   000 EUR 1   000 EUR 08/12/2006 KABASAKAL and ATAR 70084/01+ 19/09/2006 19/12/2006 -- -- 1   000 EUR 1   000 EUR 07/03/2007 SAĞIR 37562/02 19/10/2006 19/01/2007 -- -- 1   500 EUR 1   500 EUR 19/04/2007 DOĞAN Halis No.3 4119/02 10/10/2006 10/01/2007 No just satisfaction awarded MAÇİN No. 2 38282/02 24/10/2006 24/01/2007 -- -- 1   500 EUR 1   500 EUR 20/04/2007 KOÇAK and others 23720/02+ 21/12/2006 21/03/2007 -- -- 1   000 EUR 1   000 EUR 26/03/2007 [2] KAYA Öner 9007/03 10/04/2007 10/07/2007 -- -- 1   000 EUR 1   000 EUR 21/09/2007 TURĞAY 21085/02 12/04/2007 12/07/2007 No just satisfaction awarded YALÇIN 8628/03 03/05/2007 03/08/2007 No just satisfaction awarded SÖĞÜT 16593/03+ 31/05/2007 31/08/2007 No just satisfaction awarded KAYMAZ 6247/03 26/06/2007 26/09/2007 -- -- 1   000 EUR 1   000 EUR 14/12/2007 DEMİREL Hünkar 10365/03 14/06/2007 14/09/2007 -- -- 1   000 EUR 1   000 EUR 6/12/2007 ÖZMEN and others 9149/03 14/06/2007 14/09/2007 No just satisfaction awarded YENİAY 14802/03 26/06/2007 26/09/2007 -- -- 1   000 EUR 1   000 EUR 14/12/2007 YURTSEVER Mesut 42086/02 19/07/2007 19/10/2007 -- -- 1   000 EUR 1   000 EUR 15/01/2008 MARTI 9709/03   19/07/2007 19/10/2007 -- -- 1   000 EUR 1   000 EUR 16/01/2008 TAŞ Erdal No.5 29848/02 20/09/2007 20/12/2007 -- -- 500 EUR 500 EUR 18/03/2008 TAŞ Erdal No.2 13021/02 20/09/2007 20/12/2007 -- -- 500 EUR 500 EUR 18/03/2008 ÜNLÜ Suat 12458/03 15/01/2008 07/07/2008 No just satisfaction awarded ARSLAN Abdülkerim 67136/01 20/09/2007 31/03/2008 No just satisfaction awarded ÖLMEZ Cemal 7404/03 27/11/2007 27/02/2008 No just satisfaction awarded YAYAN 9043/03 27/11/2007 27/02/2008 No just satisfaction awarded GÖKTAŞ 66446/01 29/11/2007 29/02/2008 250 EUR -- -- 250 EUR 12/05/2008 TAN Mehmet Zülfi 31385/02 04/12/2007 04/03/2008 No just satisfaction awarded APAYDIN 502/03 12/02/2008 12/05/2008 121 EUR 225 EUR -- 346 EUR 11/08/2008 DENİZ Faruk 19646/03 12/02/2008 12/05/2008 2   480 EUR 3   000 EUR -- 5   480 EUR 11/08/2008 KILIÇ and KORKUT 25949/03+ 12/02/2008 12/05/2008 503 EUR 2   000 EUR -- 2   503 EUR 11/08/2008 GÖKTAŞ Ali 9323/03 12/02/2008 12/05/2008 3040 EUR 3   000 EUR -- 6   040 EUR 11/08/2008 KIZIL and others 1375/03 08/04/2008 08/07/2008 No just satisfaction awarded TEKELİOĞLU 16139/03 27/05/2008 27/08/2008 -- -- 1   000 EUR 1   000 EUR 19/11/2008 DEMİRCİ 21843/02 03/06/2008 03/09/2008 No just satisfaction awarded BALABAN 4236/03 24/06/2008 24/09/2008 -- -- 1   000 EUR   1   000 EUR 18/12/2008 UÇMA 15071/03 04/03/2008 04/06/2008 No just satisfaction awarded KEŞ 17174/03 02/12/2008 02/03/2009 -- -- 2   000 EUR 2   000 EUR 29/05/2009 DUMAN 17149/03 27/01/2009 27/04/2009 -- -- 1   900 EUR 1   900EUR 06/07/2009 KARAKOÇ Şahin 19462/04 29/04/2008 29/07/2008 -- -- 1   000 EUR 1   000 EUR 8/10/2008 DEMİREL Hünkar No.2 12166/03 20/10/2009 20/01/2010 -- -- 1   000 EUR 1   000 EUR 30/04/2010 ARGA 27803/02 28/07/2009 28/10/2009 No just satisfaction awarded ÇALIŞKAN 25506/03 20/10/2009 20/01/2010 No just satisfaction awarded ŞENTÜRK 27577/04 24/11/2009 24/02/2010 No just satisfaction awarded   b) Individual measures   Taking into account the Committee’s Recommendation Rec(2000)2 and the particular circumstances of each case, it was considered that the violations found by the Court in these cases concern procedural shortcomings which were not serious enough to pose doubt as to the outcome of the domestic proceedings complained of and that the domestic decisions at issue are not contrary to the Convention with respect to the merits.   The just satisfaction provided in the European Court’s judgments has been paid to the applicants.   Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.     II.   General measures   - Concerning the issue of the non-communication of the Public Prosecutor’s opinion , Article 297 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, adopted on 17/12/2004 and entered into force on 01/06/2005, requires notification of written opinions of the Principle Public Prosecutor to parties by the competent chamber of the Court of Cassation.   - As far as the absence of a hearing in compensation proceedings is concerned , Article 142, paragraph 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the competent court shall render its decision only after hearing a plaintiff, the public prosecutor and the representative of the Treasury.   - As far as the late payment of compensation granted by the domestic courts (Apaydın, Deniz Faruk, Göktaş Ali, Göktaş, and Kılıç and Korkut cases) is concerned , the measures had already been taken to prevent new violations of the same kind (see Resolutions ResDH(2001)70 and ResDH(2001)71 in the cases Aka and Akkuş against Turkey, respectively), in particular through the entry into force on 1   January 2000 of Law No. 4489, which brought the statutory rate of default interest into line with the annual rediscount rate applied by the Turkish Central Bank to short-term debts (the latter rate is fixed and permanently reviewed in accordance with the country’s inflation rate).     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violations found by the Court in these cases, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Turkey has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph   1, of the Convention [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers by tacit procedure in accordance with the decision taken at the 1128th meeting (December   2011) under item F. [2] The applicants did not claim the payment of default interest in view of the minimal sum involved.