CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 9 décembre 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 } .s33401DB6 { width:336.9pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; display:inline-block } .sE66965E4 { width:345.57pt; display:inline-block } .s9410DAEE { width:162.14pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s77008F62 { width:98.12pt; 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 } .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   619 9.12.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Croatia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]     Friendly settlements Dodos v. Croatia (application no. 9720/02) Lalić v. Croatia (no. 9514/02) Plavšić v. Croatia (no. 13862/02) The applicants are all Croatian nationals: Jovica Dodoš and Darinka Dodoš, born in 1953 and 1959 respectively and living in Varaždin, Croatia; Špiro Lalić, born in 1931 and living in Zagreb; and Ðorđe Plavšić, born in 1931 and living in Zagreb.   In all three cases, the applicants’ houses were blown up by unknown perpetrators.   The applicants complained that the enactment of the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 violated their right to access to court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which 6,000 euros (EUR) is to be paid to Špiro Lalić and Ðorđe Plavšić, and 10,000 EUR to Jovica Dodoš and Darinka   Dodoš for any non-pecuniary damage and pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Violation Article 6 § 1 Dragičević v. Croatia (no. 11814/02) Zovanović v. Croatia (no. 12877/02) The applicants are both Croatian nationals: Ljuban Dragičević, born in 1938 and living in Crikvenica, Croatia; and Vinko Zovanović, born in 1929 and living in Pula, Croatia.   In the Dragičević case, the applicant’s weekend house in Nin (Croatia) was blown up by unknown perpetrators on 6 July 1992. In the Zovanović case, the goods stored by the applicant in a kiosk in Zadar (Croatia) were damaged by unknown perpetrators on 3   May   1991.   The applicants complained that the enactment of the 1996 Act violated their right of access to court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in both cases and awarded each applicant EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 400 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Violation Article 10 Elden v. Turkey (no. 40985/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Cemil Elden, is a Turkish national. He was born in 1955 and lives in Antalya (Turkey).   In his capacity as a member of the HADEP party (Party of People’s Democracy), the applicant gave a speech in September 1996 on World Peace Day; his speech amounted to a virulent denunciation of the Turkish Government’s policy towards the Kurdish population. Charged with “inciting the public to hatred and hostility on the basis of a distinction on the ground of allegiance to a social class, race and region”, the applicant was sentenced on 21 October 1997 by the Ankara National Security Court to one year’s imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine. He appealed unsuccessfully against the judgment.   The applicant submitted that this criminal conviction had infringed his right to freedom of expression, in violation of Article 10 of the Convention. In addition, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he complained of the unfairness of the proceedings which led to his conviction, resulting in particular from the fact that a military judge had been on the bench of the National Security Court.   The Court considered that the grounds put forward by the domestic courts could not in themselves be considered sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. The applicant had been speaking in his capacity as a politician, in the context of his role as a player on the Turkish political scene, and had not been encouraging the use of violence, armed resistance or revolt. Nor was this an instance of hate speech, which, in the Court’s opinion, was the essential factor to be taken into consideration. It held that the applicant’s sentence was disproportionate to the aims pursued and, consequently, not “necessary in a democratic society”. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 10.   Further, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1 in respect of the complaint regarding the National Security Court’s lack of independence and impartiality. As to the other complaint, regarding the unfairness of the proceedings, the Court reiterated that a tribunal whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established could not, in any circumstances, guarantee a fair trial to the persons subject to its jurisdiction; consequently, it held that there was no need to examine this complaint.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant EUR   3,700   for pecuniary damage, EUR 6,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)       Gökdere and Gül v. Turkey (no. 49655/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicants, Kadri Gökdere and Taha Gül, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1964 and 1957 respectively.   On 23 November 1998 the Diyarbakır National Security Court sentenced both applicants to 18 years and nine months’ imprisonment on account of their membership of an armed organisation, namely the UPP (Union of Patriotic Proletariats).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants criticised the unfairness of the proceedings which had led to their conviction, resulting in particular from the fact that a military judge had been on the bench of the National Security Court.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1 in respect of the complaint regarding the National Security Court’s lack of independence and impartiality. As to the other complaint, regarding the unfairness of the proceedings, it reiterated that a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established could not, in any circumstances, guarantee a fair trial to the persons subject to its jurisdiction, and held that there was consequently no need to examine this complaint.   As to the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held unanimously that the judgment in the case in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage allegedly suffered by the applicants. It reiterated that, where it found that an applicant’s conviction had been delivered by a court which was not independent and impartial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, the appropriate relief would in principle be to have the case re-examined promptly by an independent and impartial court. The Court awarded the applicants EUR 2,500 jointly for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   ***   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.