CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 24 janvier 2006

.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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC41CA428 { width:319.58pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s44825A8F { width:222.78pt; display:inline-block } .s88EBB2FD { width:117.45pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .sE846B0E1 { width:32.58pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s5C2C1BD9 { width:23.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7319C020 { width:148.82pt; 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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   38 24.1.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Poland and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following ten Chamber judgments, none of which is final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2]   and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.     No violation of Article 3   Violation of Article 5 § 3   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Violation of Article 13 Yaşar v. Turkey (application no. 46412/99)   The applicant, Mahmut Yaşar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   On 1 June 1994, the applicant was taken into custody by policemen from the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Diyarbakır Security Directorate on suspicion of his membership of an illegal organisation, namely the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (the PKK). In a police statement he admitted that was an active member of the PKK and that he owned an unlicensed gun. He later retracted his statement alleging that it been made under duress. Medical reports dated 2 and 7 June 1994 stated that there were no signs of ill-treatment on the applicant’s body.   Criminal proceedings ensued and on 4 September 1996 the applicant was released pending trial. Later that day, he was taken into police custody and on 7 September 1996 he was handed over to police officers from the Diyarbakır Security Directorate for interrogation. The applicant alleged that he was stripped naked, beaten, subject to electric shock treatment, hosing with cold water and Palestinian hanging. A medical report carried out 19 September 1996 noted that there were no signs of ill-treatment on the applicant’s body.   He was then brought before the investigating judge at Diyarbakır State Security Court where he denied any PKK involvement and again denounced his police statement, repeating that it had been taken under duress. The judge ordered his detention on remand. Altogether, the court ordered his continued detention on 31 occasions mostly relying on the seriousness of the offence and the evidence in the case file.   In December 2002 he was sentenced to 12 years and six months imprisonment for being a member of the PKK. In view of the time already spent in detention he was released. He appealed to the Court of Cassation referring specifically to the ill-treatment he had received. His appeal was rejected on 17 December 2003.   The applicant complained that he had been subjected to various forms of ill-treatment and torture in police custody. He also complained that the length of his detention on remand and the length of the proceedings. He further complained that there were no effective remedies in domestic law in respect of his allegations of ill-treatment. He relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge), 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The Court noted some factors which raised doubts as to whether the applicant had been mistreated in custody. In particular it found that the medical reports revealed no traces of ill-treatment and that the applicant had not provided any material to substantiate his claims. The Court was therefore unable to find, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment. It held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3.   However, the Court noted that, despite the fact that the applicant repeatedly complained about ill-treatment to the authorities, no investigation was held. It therefore considered that the authorities had not provided the applicant with an effective remedy concerning his complaints. It found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   As to the applicant’s continued detention on remand, the Court noted that the state security court’s reasoning in their decisions was couched in stereotyped terms. The Court considered that the period in question, lasting six years and three months, had not been shown to have been justified. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   The Court found that the length of the proceedings, nine years and six months for two levels of jurisdiction, was unduly long and that that was attributable to the conduct of the authorities which had failed to act with the necessary diligence.   The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The applicant was awarded 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 (less EUR 685, granted by way of legal aid) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Yaşar Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 56566/00)   Violation of Article 10 The applicant, Yaşar Kaplan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Bergischgladbach (Germany). At the material time he was a columnist on the Akit (“Contract”), a daily newspaper.   On 18, 19 and 20 February 1998 Akit published a series of editorials written by the applicant and entitled “The country is in danger, stop them! – A confession-based recruitment of army officers”. On the basis of an anonymous letter from an officer, the applicant drew the public’s attention to the possibility that members of the Turkish armed forces of a particular religious persuasion were preparing to seize power.   On 9 March 1998 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant. On the same day he was arrested and placed in detention. He was kept in detention until 21 April 1998, when he was released on bail.   On 14 July 1998 the Military Court attached to the Army General Staff in Ankara convicted the applicant of interfering with relations of subordination and engaging in conduct liable to undermine confidence in superior and commanding officers. It accordingly sentenced him to one year and two months’ imprisonment under Articles 95 §§ 4 and 5 of the Military Criminal Code and Article 80 of the Criminal Code. That judgment was set aside by the Court of Cassation.   In October 1999, having regard to the provisions of Law no. 4454 which provide for the deferment of judgment and of execution of sentence in respect of offences committed through the medium of the written and spoken press, the Military Court deferred judgment for three years. On 31 December 2003, noting that the applicant had not been convicted of an intentional offence throughout the three-year period in question, the Military Court declared the criminal proceedings at an end.   The applicant submitted that his conviction had amounted to a breach of Article   10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention.   The Court held that the reasons adduced to justify the necessity of prosecuting the applicant were insufficient to satisfy it that the interference with the exercise of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression was “necessary in a democratic society”. In particular, convicting journalists was not a measure that was reasonably proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, regard being had to the interest of a democratic society in ensuring and maintaining press freedom. That was all the more true since depriving the applicant of his freedom for 42 days during the criminal proceedings had been a patently disproportionate measure in the light of the offence with which he had been charged.   Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 10 and awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is 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:     Three v iolations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Gouget and Others v. France (application no 61059/00) The applicants, Patrice Gouget, Yvonne Duburcq and Habiba Laatamna, are French nationals who were born in 1956, 1960 and 1967 respectively. They live in Saint Martin la Plaine and Saint Priest (France). Pasqualina Iacovella is an Italian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Lyons (France).   On 20 October 1998 Lyons Court of Appeal found Ms Duburcq, Ms Iacovella and Ms   Laatamna guilty of illegally practising as lawyers and illegally providing legal advice on a regular and paid basis and of entering into prior agreements regarding the payment of compensation for victims of accidents. Mr Gouget, for his part, was found guilty of aiding and abetting the offences of illegally practising as a lawyer and illegally providing legal advice on a regular and paid basis. The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law, which was dismissed by the Court of Cassation on 9   November 1999.   The applicants complained, in particular, that the proceedings before the Court of Cassation had been unfair because the reporting judge’s report and the advocate-general’s submissions had not been communicated to them and the advocate-general had been present at the court’s deliberations. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court found, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 on account of the failure to communicate the reporting judge’s report to the applicants prior to the hearing, whereas it had been sent to the advocate-general, and the failure to inform them of the tenor of the advocate-general’s submissions, to which the applicants had thus been unable to reply, and on account of the advocate-general’s presence at the deliberations of the Court of Cassation. It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Deligöz v. Turkey (no. 67586/01)       Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kelali and Others v. Turkey (no. 67585/01) The applicants are 12 Turkish nationals who live in Mersin (Turkey).   The General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated land belonging to the applicants in Mersin in order to build a motorway.   The applicants complained that the additional compensation for expropriation which they had obtained from the authorities had fallen in value, since the default interest payable had not kept pace with the very high rate of inflation in Turkey. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that it was unnecessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. The Court awarded Mr   Deligöz EUR 1,336 for pecuniary damage and EUR 35 for costs and expenses. It awarded the applicants in Kelali and Others , jointly, EUR 3,862 for pecuniary damage and EUR 35 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Kezer and Others v. Turkey (no. 58058/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants are five Turkish nationals who live in İzmir (Turkey).   The applicants were given prison sentences by İzmir State Security Court for being a member of or aiding and abetting illegal armed organisations.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicants contended, in particular, 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 court which tried them.   The Court found that the applicants’ concerns regarding the independence and impartiality of the state security court could be regarded as objectively justified. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.     It also noted that in no circumstances could a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established grant a fair trial to those within its jurisdiction; accordingly it found that it was not necessary to consider the applicants other complaints under Article 6.   It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and awarded EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. In the case of Barillon v. France the applicant also complained that she had had no effective remedy in respect of her complaint.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Kreuz v. Poland (No. 3) (no. 75888/01) The Court awarded:   For non-pecuniary damage: EUR 3,000 Maria Kaczmarczyk v. Poland (no. 13026/02) The Court awarded:   For non-pecuniary damage: EUR 2, 600 Skowroński v. Poland (no. 36431/03) The Court awarded:   For non-pecuniary damage: EUR 3,500     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Barillon v. France (no. 32929/02)   Violation of Article 13 The Court awarded:   For non-pecuniary damage: EUR 3,000   For costs and expenses: EUR 500   ***   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)   Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) 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.   [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. [2] in which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the European Convention on Human Rights