CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 19 octobre 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6F466B63 { width:51.41pt; display:inline-block } .sE66965E4 { width:345.57pt; display:inline-block } .sEB2C922 { width:98.78pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   513 19.10.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments, neither of which is final [1] . (Both are available only in French.)   Makhfi v. France (application no. 59335/00)   Violation Article 6 §§ 3 and 1 The applicant, Abdemmazack Makhfi, is a French national who was born in 1972 and lives in Nantes (France).   He appeared before the Maine-and-Loire Assize Court on charges of rape and theft as a member of a gang, having had previous convictions for similar offences. The trial began on 3 December 1998 at 9.15 a.m. and ended on 5   December at 8.30 a.m.   After the second day of the trial had ended at 12.30 a.m., counsel for the applicant applied unsuccessfully for an adjournment. The proceedings resumed at 1 a.m. and lasted until 4 a.m. Counsel for the applicant gave his address when the hearing resumed at 4.25 a.m., by which time the sitting had lasted for a total of 15 hours and 45 minutes. The judge and jury, who held their deliberations between 6.15 and 8.15 a.m. on 5 December, found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant submitted that the time at which his lawyer had had to give his address and the length of the hearing had infringed his defence rights.   The European Court of Human Rights considered it essential that not only those charged with a criminal offence but also their counsel should be able to follow the proceedings, answer questions and make their submissions without suffering from excessive tiredness. Similarly, it was vital that judges and jurors should   be in full control of their faculties of concentration and attention in order to follow the proceedings and to be able to give an informed judgment.   Finding that the rights of the defence and the principle of equality of arms had not been observed in the present case, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 3 taken together with Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 4,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   4,000 for costs and expenses.     Violation Article 10 Varlı and Others v. Turkey (no. 38586/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The six applicants, Veysi Varlı, Hüseyin Bora, Mehmet Tekin, Sadık Yaşar, Hanifı Yıldırım and Zülküf Aydın, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1958, 1962, 1961, 1949, 1958 and 1952 respectively and live in Diyarbakır.   As the leaders or members of various trade unions in Diyarbakır, the applicants issued a statement to the press in May 1993. The statement, drafted by representatives of twenty-four organisations such as unions, trade guilds, voluntary associations and newspapers, was highly critical of the government of the time, accusing it of not respecting citizens’ fundamental rights and of having “associated itself with a practice of extermination”.   The applicants were charged with disseminating propaganda against the indivisibility of the State. On 16 November 1995 the Diyarbakır National Security Court found them guilty and sentenced them, among other things, to ten months’ imprisonment, suspended on probation.   The applicants submitted that their conviction had infringed Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention. They also maintained under Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) that they had not been tried by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge among the members of the National Security Court, and complained of the unfairness of the proceedings that had resulted in their conviction.   The Court considered that the reasons given by the Turkish courts could not be regarded in themselves as sufficient to justify the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression. It observed, in particular, that although certain particularly acerbic passages of the statement painted an extremely negative picture of the Government’s anti-terrorism policy and thus gave the statement a hostile tone, they did not constitute an incitement to violence, armed resistance or an uprising and did not amount to hate speech; that, in the Court’s view, was the essential factor to be taken into consideration. The applicants’ conviction had therefore been disproportionate to the aims pursued and had accordingly not been “necessary in a democratic society”. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10.   The Court again noted that civilians standing trial for offences under the Criminal Code had legitimate reason to fear that a national security court which included a military judge among its members might not be independent and impartial. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. With regard to the complaint concerning the unfairness of the criminal proceedings, the Court reiterated that a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established could not under any circumstances guarantee a fair trial to persons subject to its jurisdiction. It accordingly considered that there was no need to examine that complaint.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Mr Varlı, Mr Yıldırım, Mr Tekin and Mr Yaşar EUR 5,000 each, Mr Bora EUR 3,000 and Mr Aydın EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage. It also awarded them EUR 4,000 jointly for costs and expenses.   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.