CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 20 septembre 2005

.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 } .sC8B042BA { width:4.1pt; display:inline-block } .sF5911048 { width:40.13pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sC41CA428 { width:319.58pt; display:inline-block } .s3EDFEA27 { width:157.47pt; display:inline-block } .s4566725A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt } .s13907D4E { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7E5E7461 { width:153.48pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE539FD08 { width:29.21pt; display:inline-block } .sE02F6AA6 { width:29.9pt; display:inline-block } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s46657C0 { width:276.91pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s2CBCE082 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:288pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s49AAA017 { width:10.3pt; display:inline-block } .sE38C928A { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; 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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .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 } .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   477 20.9.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, Turkey and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 28 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]   Summaries of the repetitive cases (in which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the European Convention on Human Rights) can be found at the end of this press release.   Nemeth v. the Czech Republic (application no. 35888/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Vĕslav Nemeth is a Czech national born in 1956 and living in Prague. He is a lawyer by profession.   On 6 March 2001 the applicant was charged with misuse of information in business transactions. He was accused of assisting a company based in the United Kingdom in securing financial profit at the expense of a Czech bank. The proceedings, which were also brought against 16 other people, are still pending before the Czech courts.   Relying on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained of the length and unfairness of the criminal proceedings brought against him.   The European Court of Human Rights declared the application admissible in respect of the length-of-proceedings complaint. It found the rest of the application inadmissible. It noted that the proceedings at issue had lasted four years and four months for one level of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a period of time was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable-time” requirement. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It awarded the applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Abdulkadir Aydın and Others v. Turkey (no. 53909/00)   Friendly settlement The applicants, Abdulkadir Aydın, Edip Samancı and Semir Güzel, are Turkish nationals. They were born in 1956, 1953 and 1968 respectively, and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). At the material time, Mr Aydın was Secretary of the local branch of the Party of Democracy and Peace ( Demokrasi Barış Partisi - DBP) in Diyarbakır. Mr Samancı was the chairman and Mr Güzel was a member of the executive committee.   In June 1998 the party’s executive committee decided to organise a series of visits with the aim of meeting the local population and civil organisations in south-east Turkey. The delegation encountered difficulties in moving around as the security forces refused them entry into certain towns. In addition, the State security police, acting on behalf of the governor of the state of emergency region, refused to allow the local branch of the party in Diyarbakır to arrange a convoy to welcome the delegation, stating that Article 11 (k) of Law no. 2935 on the state of emergency region prohibited such a gathering.   The applicants complained that they had been unable to carry out the series of visits they had planned. They relied on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which each of the applicants are to receive EUR 2,000 in damages in addition to EUR 2,000 jointly for costs and expenses, making a total of EUR 8,000. (The judgment is available only in French.)       No violation of Article 3 Baltaş v. Turkey (no. 50988/99)   Violation of Article 13 Güneş Baltaş is a Turkish national of Kurdish origin born in 1976.   In November 1998 the applicant was arrested and detained in police custody during operations against the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). A medical report was drawn up when she was brought into custody, which stated that she was in good health and showed no traces of blows or other violence. A medical examination carried out a few days later, when the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention, also made no mention of such injuries.   The applicant was charged with undermining the territorial integrity and unity of the nation and committed for trial before Istanbul State Security Court. During the proceedings against her the applicant reiterated on several occasions that she had been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody. She alleged, among other things, that she had been raped and had been subjected to electric shocks and to “falaka” (blows to the soles of the feet). The case is currently pending before the state security court.   In January 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint against the officers in whose charge she had been while in police custody and the forensic expert who had examined her, alleging rape and ill-treatment. The court found on 13 April 1999 that there was no case to answer. The applicant lodged a fresh complaint, which did not give rise to an investigation.   A medical report compiled by a psychiatrist in 2001 concluded that the applicant showed signs of disturbance caused by post-traumatic stress disorder, suggestive of severe trauma and requiring psychosocial therapy.   The applicant complained before the Court that she had been subjected to ill-treatment in policy custody and had had no effective remedy enabling her to assert her rights under the Convention. She relied on Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court noted that the medical reports compiled at the beginning and end of the applicant’s period of police custody did not mention traces of blows or other violence on her body. However, Ms Baltaş, in her evidence to Istanbul State Security Court, gave a detailed account of the ill-treatment she had allegedly received, and lodged a complaint to that effect two months later.   The Court found that the evidence before it did not bear out the applicant’s allegations that she had been subjected to ill-treatment and raped in police custody. However, the fact that the Turkish authorities had not conducted a sufficiently thorough investigation in order to establish the facts of the case constituted a serious obstacle to the establishment of the facts.   In the light of the evidence in the case, and noting that the facts were not sufficiently well established, the Court could not conclude “beyond any reasonable doubt” that the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment. Accordingly it held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3.   The conclusion arrived at by the Court did not in any way cancel out the authorities’ obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the substance of the complaint. In that respect the Court noted that the applicant had lodged a complaint against the forensic expert who had examined her, alleging that she had been examined in the presence of police officers with whom the doctor had been in connivance; no investigation had been carried out into those allegations. Furthermore, it was worth noting that neither the prosecution service nor the State Security Court had made any connection between the result of the applicant’s psychiatric examinations and her allegations, and that the Turkish authorities had not drawn any conclusions in that respect. Finally, the Court also noted that no investigation had been ordered after the applicant lodged her second complaint.   As a result, the Court found that no detailed and effective inquiry had been carried out into the arguable claims made by the applicant.   Accordingly it held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13. It awarded Ms Baltaş EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses, less the EUR 685 she had already been paid by the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)     No violation of Article 2 (death of applicant’s son) Violation of Article 2 (inadequate investigation) No violation of Article 3 Violation of Article 13 Dündar v. Turkey (no. 26972/95) The applicant, Zübeyir Dündar, is a Turkish national of Kurdish origin. He was born in 1940 and lives in Cizre, in south-east Turkey.   It was not disputed between the parties that the applicant’s son Mesut Dündar was brought to Cizre Police Station in July 1992 by police officers who wanted to take him to a psychiatric hospital. He escaped from the police station and was found strangled on 6 September 1992 near the village of Sulak. The applicant claimed that his son was killed by the security forces and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of the killing. He also complained that he suffered anguish and distress following the killing of his son and on account of his inability to discover the circumstances in which his son had been killed. He further complained that, as a result of the inadequate criminal investigation into the murder of his son, he had no access to court to bring civil proceedings against the perpetrators, who remained unidentified. Lastly, he maintained that, because of their Kurdish origin, he and his deceased son had been subjected to discrimination. He relied on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). The European Court of Human Rights observed that Mesut Dündar was killed two months after escaping from police custody. It was therefore not for the Turkish Government to account for his death. The applicant had not submitted to the Court any evidence implicating any State agents in the murder of his son. The Court therefore concluded that the actual circumstances in which the applicant’s son died remained a matter of speculation. Accordingly, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant’s son was killed by, or with the connivance of, State agents. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 2 concerning the killing of the applicant’s son.   However, the Court identified serious shortcomings in the investigation into the killing. In particular, there was no full autopsy or any meaningful examination of the scene where the body was found. No documents were submitted by the Turkish Government indicating that any steps had been taken by the investigating authorities since 1999 and no statements were taken from any villagers from Sulak, who were potential eye-witnesses. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   2 given the domestic authorities’ failure to carry out any meaningful investigation, let alone an adequate and effective one, into the killing of the applicant’s son.   The Court observed that, although the inadequacy of the investigation into the killing of his son would obviously have caused the applicant anguish and mental suffering, it had not been established that there were special factors which would justify finding a violation of Article 3 in relation to the applicant himself. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3.   The Court examined the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 under Article 13. Although the Turkish authorities had had an obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of the death of the applicant’s son, no effective criminal investigation could be considered to have been conducted in accordance with Article 13, the requirements of which might be broader than the obligation to investigate imposed by Article 2. Finding that the applicant had been denied an effective remedy in respect of the death of his son, and had thereby been denied access to any other available remedies at his disposal, including a claim for compensation, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13.   By six votes to one, the Court held that it was unnecessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaints under Article 14.   For non-pecuniary damage the Court awarded Mesut Dündar’s heirs EUR 10,000 and the applicant, EUR 3,500. It further awarded EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 3 Frik v. Turkey (no. 45443/99)   No violation of Article 13 Mizgin Frik is a Turkish national born in 1976 and living in Marbach am Neckar (Germany).   The applicant was arrested on 15 January 1994 during operations against the PKK and was detained in police custody until 27 January. She was medically examined at the beginning and end of her custody; neither report made any mention of traces of blows or other violence on her body. On 26 November 1996 Diyarbakır State Security Court found the applicant guilty of aiding and abetting the PKK and sentenced her to four years and six months’ imprisonment. Taking account of the fact that the applicant had been a minor at the material time and that there were extenuating circumstances, the court reduced the sentence to two years and six months’ imprisonment.   In November 1997 the applicant lodged a complaint against the officers in whose charge she had been while in police custody, alleging rape and ill-treatment; the court found on 1 December 1997 that there was no case to answer.   According to a medical report drawn up subsequently by a psychiatrist, the applicant presented symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder requiring psychiatric treatment. In addition, the Berlin centre for the treatment of torture victims prepared a medical report after examining the applicant in June 1999. That report found that, in all probability, Ms Frick had been detained and had been subjected to torture and ill-treatment, notably sexual abuse.   The applicant complained that she had been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody and had had no effective remedy enabling her to assert her rights under the Convention. She relied on Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court observed that the medical reports drawn up at the beginning and end of the applicant’s period of custody made no mention of traces of blows or other violence on her body. As for the medical reports prepared by a psychiatrist and by the Berlin centre for the treatment of torture victims, the Court noted that they had not been brought to the notice of the Turkish authorities. Furthermore, the applicant did not appear to have challenged the medical reports drawn up during her time in police custody or to have taken steps to consult a doctor other than those who had compiled the reports, despite being released pending trial in January 1996. The case-file did not show that she reported the rape allegations during her detention with a view to undergoing an examination which might have corroborated her allegations. Moreover, she had waited almost four years after the events at issue before lodging a criminal complaint.   Accordingly, the Court found that it had not been established “beyond any reasonable doubt” that the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody. Accordingly, it held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3.   The Court reiterated that, on the basis of the evidence before it, it had concluded that the applicant’s complaints did not disclose any appearance of a violation, and did not therefore constitute an “arguable claim” for the purposes of Article 13. The Court therefore held that there had been no violation of Article 13. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 3 Violation of Article 13 Karayiğit v. Turkey (no. 63181/00) The applicant, Baki Karayiğit, was born in 1979 and lives in Istanbul.   On 6 February 1999 he was arrested and taken into custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation, the PKK. He was interrogated for seven days. The applicant contended that, during that time, he was physically and mentally ill-treated. He maintained that he was suspended by his elbows, which were tied behind his back, and that electric shocks were administered to his body.   Two medical reports found bruising on the applicant’s upper arms, including bruises measuring 30 ‑ 40   cm. His injuries were considered sufficiently serious to prevent him from working for three days. On 10 February 1999 he was also allegedly forced to sign a statement explaining that the bruises on his arms had been caused by a dust allergy.   On 16 February 1999 the applicant was charged with being a member of an illegal organisation, under Article   168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713).   On 29 April 1999 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with Istanbul Assize Court, charging the two police officers whose signatures were on the applicant’s statement made in custody with a criminal offence proscribed by Article 243 of the Criminal Code. The applicant also submitted a report to the assize court showing that he did not suffer from an allergy. According to the Government, the applicant refused to attend the hearings. On 30 December 1999 the Assize Court acquitted the police officers on account of a lack of evidence.   The applicant alleged that he was subjected to ill-treatment and torture in police custody in February 1999. He relied on Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court noted that the applicant was medically examined by experts who found significant bruising on his arms.   It had not been alleged that those injuries pre-dated his arrest. The criminal proceedings against the police officers did not shed any light on the origin of those bruises, which had appeared during the applicant’s seven-day detention. The applicant had   also provided a medical report showing that he did not have a dust allergy.   Considering the circumstances of the case as a whole, and the absence of a plausible explanation from the Government as to the cause of the injuries sustained by the applicant while in custody, the Court found that those injuries were the result of treatment for which the Government bore responsibility. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3.   The Court further found that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation, despite their obligation to do so under Article 13. The criminal proceedings failed to provide any explanation as to the origin of the applicant’s injures. The Assize Court apparently did not take the medical reports into account or the report showing that the applicant did not suffer from an allergy. The documents sent by the prison authorities to the Assize Court did not bear the applicant’s signature and the Court could not imagine why the applicant would refuse to attend the hearings before the Assize Court to give evidence which would have been to his advantage. The Court found that the domestic court failed to secure the basic, available evidence as to the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment, by not obtaining a detailed statement from the applicant, who was the key witness. Concluding that the proceedings did not provide the thorough, effective remedy required by Article 13, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,500 (less EUR 685 granted by way of legal aid) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 2 (death of the applicants’ relative) Violation of Article 2 (inadequate investigation) No violation of Article 3 No violation of Article 5 Violation of Article 13   Özgen and others v. Turkey (no. 38607/97) The applicants, Dilsah Özgen, Seniha Özgen and Nurcihan Altındağ, are Turkish nationals. They were born in 1937, 1956 and 1961 respectively and live in Diyarbakır. They are the wife and daughters of Fikri Özgen, who disappeared in February 1997, aged 73.   The facts are disputed between the parties.   The applicants contended that at about 10 a.m. on 27 February 1997 Fikri Özgen was abducted in the street by four plain-clothes police officers while he had been about 100 metres from his home. The next day Dilsah Özgen informed the Diyarbakır public prosecutor that her husband had been abducted. On 6 March 1997 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint with the prosecutor.   The Turkish Government asserted that Fikri Özgen had never been taken into police custody and that his disappearance was in no way due to acts by the State security forces.   The prosecutor opened an investigation on 13 March 1997 during which evidence was heard from the applicants, information requested from other public prosecutor’s offices in the region, from various police headquarters and the gendarmerie. An order was given to identify the owner of the vehicle whose number plate had been noted down by the applicants on the day of the incident, but it did not help establish the identity of those responsible because it related to a lorry and not a car. During the investigation the prosecutor regularly asked the gendarmerie and the police headquarters to continue making enquiries into the fate of Fikri Özgen. The investigation is still pending before the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor’s Office.   The applicants contended that their husband/father had disappeared after being abducted by State agents. They relied on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   With regard to the Fikri Özgen’s disappearance, the Court noted that the applicants mainly based their allegations on their own statements which were not specifically corroborated by any other evidence. It also found a number of discrepancies, or even contradictions, in the applicants’ allegations.   In the light of the evidence in its possession the Court considered that the allegation that Fikri Özgen had been abducted and held by State agents was hypothetical and speculative and not based on sufficiently credible evidence. In those circumstances it considered that it was not established “beyond any reasonable doubt” that Turkey’s responsibility had been engaged in the abduction and disappearance of the applicants’ relative.   Regarding the investigations carried out, the Court noted that the prosecutor had not deemed it necessary to identify and hear evidence from persons who could have witnessed the incident, whereas the applicants alleged that it had occurred in front of a restaurant in the street in the presence of witnesses. Nor did the evidence show that efforts had been made during the investigation to verify whether certain teams of police officers or gendarmes had detained Fikri Özgen but omitted to register him in the police custody records.   In those conditions the Court concluded that the Turkish authorities had failed to conduct a sufficient and effective investigation into Fikri Özgen’s disappearance. It accordingly held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 in that respect.   Having found that it was not established beyond any reasonable doubt that Turkey had been involved in the disappearance or alleged detention of Fikri Özgen, the Court held, unanimously, that there had not been a violation of Articles 3 and 5.   In the Court’s view, the authorities had had an obligation to undertake an effective investigation into the circumstances in which the applicants’ relative had disappeared. In the present case an effective criminal investigation could not be deemed to have been carried out in accordance with Article 13, the requirements of which went beyond the obligation to conduct an investigation as required by Article 2. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 13.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicants jointly EUR   20,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,500 for costs and expenses, less the EUR   4,100 already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French).   No violation of Article 3 Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 5 § 5 Violation of Article 6 § 1 No violation of Article 13 No violation of Article 14 Sevgin and İnce v. Turkey (no. 46262/99) The applicants, both Turkish nationals, are Hayrettin Sevgin and Cevat İnce. They were born in 1960 and 1967 respectively and live in Diyarbakır.   On 16 November 1993 Mr Sevgin was taken into custody by the security forces at the Sağırsu Gendarmerie Command, where, he alleged, he was severely tortured for 18 days. He stated that he was ordered to strip and that he was blindfolded, severely beaten and strung up by his arms.   On 24 October 1993 Cevat İnce was taken into custody by the security forces at the Siirt Gendarmerie Command. On 26 October 1993 he took police officers from the Prevention of Terrorism Department to a hide-out containing a Kalashnikov rifle, a hand grenade and bullets. He claimed he was severely tortured in custody.   Both applicants maintained that they were forced to sign false confessions giving detailed accounts of their alleged involvement in PKK activities.     On 1 December 1993 and 5 November 1993 respectively they were examined by a doctor who found no traces of blows on their bodies.   They were subsequently charged, on 21 December 1993 and 6 December 1993 respectively, with engaging in acts aimed at the separation of a part of the territory of the State, under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. They denied the charges against them. They were tried together before Diyarbakır State Security Court, which, on 6 April 1999, convicted them as charged and sentenced them to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment.   The applicants alleged that they were subjected to torture during their detention in police custody. They also complained about the length of their detention on remand and the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against them, in particular due to the composition of the state security court that convicted them. They relied on Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 5 §§ 3, 4, and 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and   3   (d) (right to a fair hearing), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The European Court of Human Rights noted that there were a number of elements in the case which cast doubt on whether the applicants suffered treatment prohibited by Article 3 when they were detained in police custody. In particular, at no stage during the criminal proceedings before Diyarbakır State Security Court, which lasted more than six years, did the applicants or their lawyers raise their allegations about being ill-treated and tortured. Neither did the medical reports reveal any traces of ill-treatment on the applicants’ bodies.   Finding that the evidence before it did not enable it to find beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicants were subjected to ill-treatment, the Court held, unanimously, that there had not been a violation of Article   3.   The Court further considered that the length of the applicants’ detention on remand, given the stereotypical reasoning of the courts, had not been shown to be justified. Additionally, the   domestic authorities had not conducted the criminal proceedings with special diligence.   The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. As the applicants had no access to a remedy able to compensate them for the breach of Article 5 § 3 the Court further held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5.   Under Article 6 § 1, the Court noted, as it had found in similar cases, that the applicants’ fears as to the state security court’s lack of independence and impartiality could be regarded as objectively justified. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that it was unnecessary to examine the applicant’s remaining complaints under Article 6.   The Court considered that the applicants had not made out an “arguable claim” for their grievances under Article 3 which would have required a remedy under Article 13.   The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article   13.   On the basis of the facts established in this case and the materials before it, the Court did not find it proven that there had been a violation of Article   14.   The Court awarded the applicants EUR 6,000 each for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 Taş v. Turkey (no. 21179/02) The applicant, Sabri Taş was born in 1964 and lives in Batman (Turkey).   He was taken into custody by police officers from the Batman Anti-Terrorist Branch on 7 February 1993. On 5 March 1993 Batman Criminal Court ordered his remand in custody.   On 6 April 1993 and on 10 October 1994 the Public Prosecutor at Diyarbakır State Security Court filed two different bills of indictment accusing the applicant of being a member of an illegal terrorist organization and undermining the integrity of the State. Ultimately, on 31 January 2002, the State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 168/2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment. He was released the same day.   The applicant complains that his detention on remand and the criminal proceedings brought against him exceeded the reasonable time requirements of Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Noting that the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention had not been shown to be justified, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   Further, having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considered that the length of the proceedings in the applicants’ case was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court made no award for just satisfaction as the applicant had failed to submit a claim within the specified time-limit. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Veysel Turhan v. Turkey (no. 53648/00)              Violation of Article 10 Veysel Turhan is a Turkish national. He was born in 1968 and lives in Siirt (Turkey). At the material time he was chairman of the Siirt provincial branch of the People’s Labour Party ( Halkın Emek Partisi ).   After giving a live telephone interview on 2 June 1998 to the illegal television station Med-TV the applicant was convicted, under Article 312 §§ 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code, of inciting the people to hatred and hostility on the basis of a distinction on grounds of race and region. He was charged, in particular, with having criticised the Government’s economic policy and having claimed that “the Kurdish people” were victims of an assimilation policy.   On 20 April 1999 Diyarbakır State Security Court found Mr Turhan guilty as charged and sentenced him to one year and four months’ imprisonment and a fine under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). On 2 November 1999 the state security court stayed the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant under section 1 of Law no. 4454 which provides for the deferment of judgment and of execution of sentence in respect of offences committed before 12 July 1997 through the medium of the written and oral press.   The applicant contended that the criminal proceedings brought against him had infringed his right to freedom of expression and violated Article 10.   It was clear to the Court that the applicant had expressed himself in his capacity as a politician and player on the Turkish political scene, neither inciting to nor using violence nor inciting to armed resistance or uprising. It pointed out that it had already dealt with cases raising questions that were similar to those raised in the present case, in which it had concluded that there had been a violation of Article 10.   The Court also noted that the stay of proceedings from which the applicant had benefited had had the effect of partly censoring his activities and substantially reducing his ability to voice publicly criticism that had its place in a public debate and whose existence could not be denied.   In those circumstances the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10. Although invited to do so, Mr Turhan did not submit a claim for just satisfaction within the time allowed. The Court did not therefore consider it necessary to make such an award. (The judgment is available only in French).                     Violation of Article 11 Yeşilgöz v. Turkey (no. 45454/99)           Violation of Article 13 Selman Yeşilgöz, a Turkish national born in 1962 and living in Istanbul, is the chairman of the Tunceli Cultural and Mutual Aid Association ( Tunceli Kültür ve Dayanışma Derneği ).   In July 1998 the applicant decided to organise a trip for the members of the association into the Tunceli region to meet the local people in order to find out about the problems in that region. The group was prevented from entering Tunceli by soldiers and informed that, in view of an order of the provincial governor issued in accordance with section 11(k) of Law no. 2935 on state-of-emergency regions, it was debarred from entering Tunceli.   The applicant complained that the order of the provincial governor preventing him from visiting the Tunceli region had violated Article   11 (freedom of assembly and association). He further alleged a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court found that the refusal to allow the applicant to enter the Tunceli region amounted to an interference with his right to freedom of association that was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim, namely, the protection of public safety and the prevention of crime.   It agreed that the political atmosphere could be a factor of some weight given the security situation regarding terrorist acts at the material time in south-east Turkey. Nevertheless, the provincial governor had been given advance warning of the planned series of visits to the region. The governor had not given reasons for the decision, which – at first sight – did not appear to be a necessary or adequate measure taken for the proper conduct of the planned series of visits. Furthermore, there was nothing to indicate that the planned visit might serve as a platform for spreading ideas advocating violence or the rejection of democracy, or that it had a potentially harmful effect such as to justify banning it.   In those circumstances the Court found that the ban could not reasonably be deemed to correspond to a “pressing social need” and that it had not therefore been necessary in a democratic society. It accordingly held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 11.   The Court pointed out that it had already held that section 11(k) of Law no. 2935 conferred wide-ranging powers on the governor of the state of emergency region to impose administrative bans on meetings or demonstrations and that, because the courts had no power to review such measures, the person concerned had been deprived of sufficient safeguards to protect against abuse. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR   1,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,880 for costs and expenses, less the EUR   701 already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French).     No violation of Article 11   Violation of Article 13 Akat v. Turkey (no. 45050/98) Bulğa and Others v. Turkey (no. 43974/98) Ertaş Aydın and Others v. Turkey (no. 43672/98) In these three cases, the 15 applicants are all Turkish nationals employed in the civil service. In the cases Akat v. Turkey and Bulğa and Others v. Turkey , the applicants, all of whom are teachers, are members of the trade union for employees in the education, science and cultural sectors ( Eğitim-Sen ); in the case Ertaş Aydın and Others v. Turkey , the applicants are employees of public hospitals and are all members of the trade union for employees of the medical and social services. The applicants’ posts were all transferred to another town.   The applicants claimed that their posts had been transferred because they belonged to a trade union. They relied on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   It was not the Court’s task to assess in the light of the Convention whether the decisions to transfer the posts were in themselves correct, but rather to examine under Article 11 the impact of those decisions on the applicants’ right to engage in trade union activity.   The Court noted that the applicants’ status as civil servants implied the possibility of their being transferred to another department or another town in accordance with the requirements of the public service. In that connection, the decisions in question did not restrict or deny them their right to belong to a trade union or their right to exercise or enjoy freedom of association. As to their individual freedom of association, the applicants had retained it both legally speaking and in practice despite the impugned measures, in that they continued to be members of their trade unions.   Having regard to the evidence brought before it, the Court was not satisfied that the impugned decisions constituted a constraint or an infringement affecting the very essence of the applicants’ right to freedom of association, or that they had been prevented from engaging in trade union activity in their new posts or places of work.   As a result the Court took the view that the measures at issue fell within the scope of the proper running and management of the public service. It therefore held, unanimously in all three cases, that there had been no violation of Article 11.   The Court further noted that Article 4 (g) of Decree-Law no. 285 granted the governor of the state of emergency region wide-ranging powers with regard to post transfers. As there was no remedy available under Turkish law enabling the applicants to challenge the decision by the governor of the state of emergency region to transfer their posts, the Court held, unanimously in the three cases, that there had been a violation of Article 13.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded EUR 500 for non-pecuniary damage to each of the 15 applicants. It also awarded EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses to Mr Akat , EUR 4,000 to the applicants jointly in Bulğa and Others v. Turkey and EUR 2,000 to the applicants jointly in Ertaş Aydın and Others v. Turkey . (These judgments are available only in French.)   Repetitive Cases   In the following cases the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention: Violation of Article 6 § 1 Akar and Beçet v. Turkey (no. 55954/00) Ali Abbas Öztürk v. Turkey (no. 52695/99) Aytan v. Turkey (no. 54275/00) Karakurt v. Turkey (no. 45718/99) Şahmo v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 57919/00) Temirkan v. Turkey (no. 41990/98) In these six cases the applicants were all given prison sentences by a state security court, or a fine in Ms Temirkan ’s case. They had been accused of being members of or aiding and abetting illegal armed organisations, except for Ms Temirkan , who had been accused of distributing anti-State propaganda by means of the Devrimci Proletarya (“The revolutionary proletariat”), a review of which she is the owner.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants contended that their cases had not been heard by an independent and impartial court, because a military judge had sat on the bench of the state security courts. In all cases, except Aytan v. Turkey , the applicants also complained that the proceedings resulting in their conviction had been unfair and submitted other grievances under Article 6. In the case of Ali Abbas Öztürk v. Turke y the applicant additionally alleged a violation of Article 7 (no punishment without law), and the applicant in the Aytan v. Turkey case complained of the length of the proceedings against him which had lasted 11 years and five months for five levels of jurisdiction.   The Court declared the applications admissible only regarding the complaint under Article 6 § 1. It held, unanimously, in each of these cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 regarding the complaint that the state security court was not independent or impartial.   With regard to the other complaints relating to the unfairness of the proceedings, the Court 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. It therefore considered that it was not necessary to examine them.   In the Aytan v. Turkey case the Court also held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings against the applicant.   Regarding the application of Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court held, unanimously in each of the cases, that the present judgments constituted in themselves sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage alleged by the applicants. It reiterated that where it found that an applicant had been convicted by a court which was not independent and impartial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, a retrial within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court represented in principle the most appropriate way of redressing the violation. The Court awarded Mr Akar and Mr Beçet EUR   2,200 jointly for costs and expenses, EUR   1,400 to Mr Ali Abbas Öztürk , EUR   2,000 to Mr Karakurt and EUR   1,000 to Ms Temirkan . (These judgments are available only in French, except the judgments Akar and Beçet v. Turkey and Karakurt v. Turkey , which are available only in English).   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1       Pecuniary damage Costs and expenses   Cevdet and Hatice Yılmaz v. Turkey (no. 88/02) 4,500 500 Çoruh v. Turkey (no. 47574/99) 29,321 500 Derilgen and Others v. Turkey (no. 44713/98) 16,843 -   In these three Turkish cases, the applicants, all Turkish nationals, complained of delays in the payment of compensation owed to them for expropriated property. They further alleged that the sums they had received did not take into account the true rate of inflation between the time when the amount due to them was fixed and the date of payment.   In each case the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the case of Çoruh v. Turkey it held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded them in respect of pecuniary damage and costs and expenses the overall sums set out above, expressed in euros. (The judgments are available only in English).   Violation of Article 6 § 1(all cases) Violation of Article 13 (Drobotyuk and Polonets only) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Polonets only) Drobotyuk c. Ukraine (no. 22219/02) Gavrilenko c. Ukraine (no. 24596/02) Lupandin c. Ukraine (no. 70898/01) Polonets c. Ukraine (no. 39496/02) Trykhlib c. Ukraine (no. 58312/00)   In these five cases, the applicants complained of the failure to enforce a court decision awarding them a sum of money in back pay. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). Certain applicant also relied on Article 13 (in the cases Drobotyuk and Polonets ) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) (in the case Polonets ).   In each case he Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. In   Drobotyuk and Polonets the Court further found that there was no effective remedy available to redress the damage created by the delay in the enforcement of the judgements in question, which was caused by the authorities failure to take the necessary legislative or budgetary measures. The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Pr