CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 décembre 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 25 December 2000 Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.) - 46221/99 Decision 14.12.2000 [Section I] Article 2 Article 2-1 Death penalty Imposition of death penalty: admissible Article 6 Article 6-3-c Defence through legal assistance Free access of applicant to lawyers in domestic criminal proceedings and in proceedings before the Court: admissible (and proposal to relinquish jurisdiction to the Grand Chamber) (text of press release) In November 1998 the applicant, the leader of the PKK, was deported from Syria. After periods of residence in a number of different countries, he was arrested in Nairobi (Kenya) on 16 February 1999 during an operation conducted in disputed circumstances. He was transferred to Turkey and placed in police custody on the same day at İmralı Prison. On 23 February 1999 the applicant appeared before a judge of the National Security Court, who ordered him to be placed in pre-trial detention. In an indictment filed on 24 April 1999 the Public Prosecutor at the Ankara National Security Court accused the applicant of carrying out actions calculated to bring about the separation of a part of Turkish territory and of forming and leading an armed gang to achieve that end. The Public Prosecutor asked the court to sentence the applicant to death under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. On 29 June 1999 the Ankara National Security Court found the applicant guilty as charged   and sentenced him to death under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. By a judgment of 25 November 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld in all respects the judgment of 29 June 1999. On 30 November 1999 the European Court of   Human Rights asked the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to adopt the following interim measure: “ The Court requests the respondent Government to take all necessary steps to ensure that the death penalty is not carried out so as to enable the Court to proceed effectively with the examination of the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaints under the Convention.” On 21 November 2000 a Chamber of seven Judges from the First Section of the European Court of Human Rights held a hearing on the admissibility and the merits of the application lodged by Abdullah Öcalan on 16 February 1999. Mr Öcalan complained of violations of the following Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights: Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of ill-treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 7 (no punishment without law), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 10 (freedom of expression), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14   (prohibition of discrimination), 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) and 34   (right of individual application). On 14 December 2000 the Chamber declared Mr Öcalan’s complaints admissible, with the exception of two complaints under Article 5 (5 § 2 - the right to be informed of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge; and 5 § 5 - the right to compensation for a breach of the provisions of Article 5). The issue of whether the applicant exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his remaining complaints under Article 5 has been joined to the merits. The Chamber further decided to inform the parties of its intention to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber (seventeen Judges) in accordance with Article 30 of the Convention, which provides: “Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question of interpretation of the Convention or the protocols thereto, or where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court, the Chamber may, at any time before it has rendered its judgment, relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, unless one of the parties objects”. The parties have been given one month in which to indicate to the Chamber whether they object to relinquishment.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes