CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 10 novembre 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sD507F2B1 { width:13.9pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s5DBD44AB { width:13.24pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .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 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .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 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .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 } .s2B434500 { height:31.2pt } .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 } .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 } .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   561 10.11.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments, none of which is final. [1] (These judgments are all in French except for the Dicle v. Turkey judgment, which is in English.)     Violation of Article 10   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Ayhan v. Turkey (no. 1) (no. 45585/99) Ayhan v. Turkey (no. 2) (no. 49059/99) Baran v. Turkey (no. 48988/99) Odabaşı v. Turkey (no. 41618/98)   Violation of Article 10   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Dicle v. Turkey (no. 34685/97)           No violation of Article 18   Violation of Article 10   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Kalın v. Turkey (no. 31236/96)             No violation of Article 7     In the above six Turkish cases the applicants, all Turkish nationals, complained that their convictions had infringed their right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), they further complained that the proceedings which had led to their convictions had not been fair. In the Dicle case the applicant also complained of violations of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 18 (limitation on the use of restrictions on rights) of the Convention. In addition, in the Kalın case, the applicant complained of violations of Article   7 (no   punishment without law) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.   Ayhan (no. 1 and no. 2) Medeni Ayhan was born in 1968 and lives in Ankara. He is a lawyer by profession and at the material time was also the editor of the magazine Özgür Bilim (Free Science). The first application concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of spreading separatist propaganda arising from two speeches he made in March and April 1993 and an article published in Özgür Bilim. These led to his being sentenced to two terms of imprisonment, each of one year, commuted to fines, for the speeches, and two years’ imprisonment, among other penalties, for the offending article.   The second application concerns a sentence of one year’s imprisonment and a fine imposed on the applicant when he was convicted of spreading separatist propaganda on account of a book he wrote in 1996 entitled “The Kurdish philosopher Ehmedê Xanî”. The offending book was also seized.   Baran Zynep Baran was born in 1960 and lives in Istanbul. In 1997 she wrote a pamphlet for the Foundation for solidarity with Kurdish women and research on women’s problems ( Kürt Kadınları ile Dayanışma ve Kadın Sorunları Araştırma Vakfı , K.KA.DaV.) of which she is the president. She was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and a fine for inciting the people to hatred and hostility by creating discrimination based on membership of a particular social class.   Dicle Mehmet Hatip Dicle was born in 1955 and lives in Ankara. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for publishing in the daily newspaper Yeni Politika an article entitled “The Atatürk international prize” ( Uluslararası Atatürk Barış Ödülü ).   Kalın Özkan Kalın was born in 1964 and lives in Lausanne (Switzerland). As the editor of the weekly publication Yeni Ülke (New Country), he was prosecuted for publishing two articles entitled “The August heat is rising in Botan” and “They did not leave, they ran away”, the latter being a press release put out by the European information service of the PKK. On conviction of spreading separatist propaganda he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and a fine for the first article and a fine for the second article.   Odabaşı Eşref Odabaşı was born in 1959 and lives in Kırşehir (Turkey). At the material time he was the leader of the People’s Democracy Party (HADEP) in the province of Kırşehir. Having published in the party bulletin a text signed by “a group of men of religion sympathising with HADEP”, he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and a “heavy” fine for incitement to hatred and hostility by making a distinction based on race and regional identity.   The European Court of Human Rights considered that in the Dicle case the complaint concerning freedom of thought and expression should be examined under Article 10 only.   In each of these cases the Court considered that the reasons given by the Turkish courts could not in themselves be considered sufficient to justify the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 10 of the Convention.   The Court likewise held unanimously that in each of these cases there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1 as regards the complaint that national security courts were not independent and impartial, and that it was not necessary to examine the other complaints under Article   6.   In addition, in the Dicle case, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 18. In the Kalın case the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 7 and that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 14 taken together with Articles 6 and 10.   The Court awarded the applicants for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses the overall sums set out below, expressed in euros.       Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Ayhan v. Turkey (no. 1) 8,000 2,500 Ayhan v. Turkey (no. 2) 4,000 2,000 Baran v. Turkey   5,500 3,000 (less EUR 660 received in legal aid) Dicle v. Turkey   5,000 3,000 Kalın v. Turkey   13,000 4,000   Odabaşı v. Turkey 3,000 2,000     ***   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.