CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 10 juillet 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sA64C57B1 { font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF8F41F50 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:9pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA54E3CC5 { font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s35B47D62 { font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s755EE6C8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt } .sDA147922 { width:25.02pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA0611542 { color:#000000 } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBFC49883 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E9F4572 { width:22.62pt; display:inline-block } .s2A0B8845 { width:27.06pt; display:inline-block } .sB2586C02 { width:24.28pt; display:inline-block } .sD4F3D9DA { width:25.4pt; display:inline-block } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .s8B126725 { width:21.5pt; display:inline-block } .s67F902E9 { width:18.72pt; display:inline-block } .sF6ABF5EC { width:23.17pt; display:inline-block } 1176e réunion – 10 juillet 2013   Annexe 18 (Point H46-1)   Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)149 Quatre affaires contre Turquie Exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   Affaire Requête n o Arrêt du Définitif le ERTÜRK HASAN 15259//02 12/04/2005 12/07/2005 KANBUR n o 2 9984/03 14/10/2008 14/01/2009 ÇENGELLI ET ERYILMAZ 287/03 10/06/2008 10/09/2008 KAYA MEHMET 36150/02 06/12/2005 06/03/2006   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 10 juillet 2013, lors de la 1176e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)     Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit que le Comité surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «   la Convention   » et «   la Cour   »),   Vu les arrêts définitifs, qui ont été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans les affaires ci-dessus et les violations constatées   ;   Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe   1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire   :   -                  de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par restitutio in integrum   ; et -                  de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;   Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer à l’obligation susmentionnée   ;   Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter les arrêts, y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2013)696 )   ;   S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées,   DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans ces affaires et   DECIDE d’en clore l’examen. Execution of the European Court of Human Rights judgments in Erturk group of cases (15259/02, and others) Revised Action Report (anglais seulement)   A.   FACTS   1.   Ertürk group of cases (Ertürk v. Turkey); Çengelli and Eryılmaz v. Turkey (287/03); Kaya v. Turkey (36150/02); and Kanbur (No. 2) v. Turkey (9984/03) concern excessive length of criminal proceedings before Martial Law Courts and ordinary courts. The Court has found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   2.   In the case of Ertürk v. Turkey (15259/02), proceedings began in November 1983 and at the time the Court issued its judgment, they had been pending more than 21 years of which 18 fell under the Court’s jurisdiction.   3.   In the case of Kaya v. Turkey (36150/02), proceedings began in September 1980 and were still pending before the Ankara Assize Court at the time the Court gave its judgment, for some 25 years of which 18 fell under the Court’s jurisdiction.   4.   In the case of Çengelli and Eryılmaz v. Turkey (287/03), the proceedings began on 3 March 1981 and 15 March 1981. They were still pending before the Ankara Assize Court at the time the Court issued its judgment, some 27 years of which 21 fell under the Court’s jurisdiction. The applicants were released pending trial respectively in 1988 and 1991.   5.   The case of Kanbur No. 2 v. Turkey (9984/03) is the applicant’s second application before the Court. His first application was concluded by a judgment of 30 October 2001 in which the Court had found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (application No. 28291/95, lodged on 21 July 1995). By then, the proceedings had lasted for over 19 years. In the present application, the Court again found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings which have continued for more than six years and ten months, for two levels of jurisdiction, since the Court’s earlier judgment. The proceedings were still pending before the Court of Cassation at the time the Court issued its judgment.     B.   JUDGMENTS   6.   The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in all of the above-mentioned cases on account of excessive length of proceedings. It awarded Hasan Ertürk, Ferit Çengelli and Süleyman Eryılmaz EUR 14,000, EUR 10,800 and EUR 19,200 respectively for non-pecuniary damage. The Court also awarded Mehmet Kaya and Yaşar Kanbur EUR 14,000 and EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses, respectively.     C.   INDIVIDUAL MEASURES   Just Satisfaction   7.   The amounts awarded by the Court have been paid to the applicants in all of the above-mentioned cases and relevant documents indicating payment have been submitted to the Department for the Execution of the Court Judgments.   Criminal Proceedings against the Applicants   8.   The criminal proceedings against Hasan Ertürk ended by a judgment of the Court of Cassation delivered on 17 May 2011, which upheld the final judgment rendered by the 6th Chamber of the Ankara Assize Court on 29 June 2010.   9.   The criminal proceedings against Ferit Çengelli ended on 8 June 2001 by a judgment of the 4th Ankara Assize Court, due to the lapse of the statutory time limit.   10.   The criminal proceedings against Süleyman Eryilmaz ended by a judgment of the 4th Ankara Assize Court delivered on 29 June 2011, due to the lapse of the statutory time limit. The judgment became final on 27 July 2011.   11.   The criminal proceedings against Mehmet Kaya ended on 17 March 2010 by the Court of Cassation’s judgment that upheld the final judgment rendered by the Ankara Assize Court on 26 March 2009.   12.   The criminal proceedings in Yaşar Kanbur case ended 16 May 2012 by the judgment of the Ankara Assize Court due to the lapse of the statutory time limit. The judgment became final 16 April 2013.     D.   GENERAL MEASURES   13.   These cases present similarities to other cases of excessive length of criminal proceedings before Martial Law Courts, such as that of Şahiner and others against Turkey, which was closed by Resolution ResDH(2002)86 following the adoption of general measures by the Turkish authorities, in particular the abolition of these courts.     Translation and publication of the judgments   14.   The judgments have been translated into Turkish and published on the official web site of the Human Rights Department of the Ministry of Justice.   15.   The judgments are available at:   http://www.inhak.adalet.gov.tr/ara/karar/erturk.pdf. http://www.inhak.adalet.gov.tr/ara/karar/cengelliveeryilmaz.pdf http://www.inhak.adalet.gov.tr/ara/karar/mehmetkaya2005.pdf http://www.inhak.adalet.gov.tr/ara/karar/kanbur(no2).pdf   16.   In addition, the translated version of the judgments has been circulated to the relevant courts and authorities such as the Constitutional Court, the Court of Cassation, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ministry of Finance, the Prime Ministry.   17.   Consequently, the general measures as regards the Ertürk group of cases have duly been adopted by the government and the examination of this group must also be closed by the Committee of Ministers.   Individual application right before the Constitutional Court   18.   Individual application right has been introduced into the Turkish legal system by the 2010 constitutional amendments. The Constitutional Court has been receiving individual applications since 23 September 2012. Article 148 of the Constitution stipulates that anyone who considers that their constitutional rights set forth in the European Convention on Human Rights have been infringed by a public authority has a right to apply to the Constitutional Court after exhausting domestic remedies.   19.   The Constitutional Court shall decide whether the fundamental rights of the applicant have been violated, and if so, may decide how to remedy the violation and its consequences.   20.   In case the violation has been caused by a court decision, the Constitutional Court shall either remit the file to the competent court for retrial in order to restore the fundamental rights of the applicant or award compensation to the applicant or ask the applicant to file a complaint before the competent first-instance court to seek compensation for the damages suffered.   E.   EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENTS   21.   In light of the submissions made above, the government maintains that Turkey has taken all necessary general measures and no further individual measures are needed for the execution of the judgments in Ertürk Group of cases. The government therefore respectfully invites the Committee of Ministers to close its examination.