CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 25 juillet 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 } .sE429CF23 { width:273.58pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   443 25.7.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   One repetitive case [2] can also be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 6 § 1(length) Ahmet Kılıç v. Turkey (application no. 38473/02) Violation of Article 6 § 1(fairness) The applicant, Ahmet Kılıç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Amasya . (Turkey).   On 12 June 1995 the applicant unsuccessfully took proceedings against the Belevi Municipality to contest the termination of his contract of employment. A judgment finding against the applicant by Samsun Administrative Court was later quashed on appeal. The court then ordered the Municipality to reinstate the applicant and pay his monthly salary and other outstanding sums due to him. The Municipality’s appeal was rejected by the Council of State and the judgment was served on the applicant on 3 April 2002.   To date, no payments have been made to the applicant.   The applicant complained about the Municipality’s failure to comply with the court judgment and the length of the administrative proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the proceedings were of vital importance for the applicant, since it concerned his employment. Therefore the Court considered, taking into account what was at stake for the applicant, that by failing for such a substantial period of time to take the necessary measures to comply with the final judicial decisions, the Turkish authorities deprived the provisions of Article 6 § 1 of much of their useful effect. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the non-enforcement of the judgment.   It also noted that the proceedings in question had lasted six years and nine months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a length of time was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, it concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the length of administrative proceedings.   The applicant was awarded 1,500   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 10   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Çapan v. Turkey (no. 71978/01) Halis Doğan v. Turkey (no. 2) (no. 71984/01) The applicants are both Turkish nationals. Cihan Çapan was born in 1977 and lives in Altdorf (Switzerland); Halis Doğan was born in 1944 and lives in Istanbul. At the material time Mr   Çapan was the editor of the daily newspaper Özgür Bakış , owned by Mr Doğan.   In January 2000 the applicants were prosecuted for disseminating separatist propaganda. The charges were based on the fact that on 12 January 2000 they had published in issue no. 270 of Özgür Bakış , which was ordered to be seized on the same day, a letter and an article written by Murat Karayılan, among others, one of the leaders of the PKK [3] , the subject of which was Abdullah Öcalan (the imprisoned leader of the PKK) and the course of his trial, the PKK’s armed struggle and the process of democratisation in Turkey.   On 8 November 2000 the Istanbul National Security Court fined Mr Doğan and sentenced Mr   Çapan to 13 months’ imprisonment and a fine. These convictions were upheld by the Court of Cassation on 12 March 2001. As Mr Çapan had left Turkey for Switzerland, the sentences were not enforced.   Mr Çapan was also sentenced, on 5 September 2000, to five months’ imprisonment, commuted to a fine, for disseminating separatist propaganda, on account of the publication of another article in issue no. 246 of Özgür Bakış . Mr Doğan was also ordered to pay a second fine and the newspaper was closed down for three days for the publication in issue no. 318 of an article which was deemed to be propaganda on behalf of an armed organisation. These further convictions of the applicants were upheld by the Court of Cassation on 19 and 26 February 2001 respectively.   The applicants submitted that their criminal convictions had infringed their right to freedom of expression and complained that the proceedings in the Court of Cassation had been unfair on account of the failure to supply them with a copy of the public prosecutor’s submissions. Among other provisions, they relied on Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial). In addition, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) taken together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), Mr Doğan submitted that the seizure of the newspaper and the temporary ban on publication of Özgür Bakış had caused him to suffer a financial loss.   The Court considered that the reasons given by the Turkish courts could not be considered sufficient in themselves to justify the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression. Although some particularly acerbic passages in the articles painted an extremely negative picture of the Turkish State, and thus gave the text a hostile connotation, they did not exhort the use of violence or incite armed resistance or rebellion, and they did not constitute hate-speech, which, in the Court’s view, was the essential element to be taken into consideration. It found the applicants’ convictions to be disproportionate to the aims pursued and therefore not “necessary in a democratic society”. It accordingly held by five votes to two in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 10.   In addition, the Court observed that it had previously held that failure to supply a copy of the public prosecutor’s submissions, in view of the nature of the observations contained in them and the impossibility for a defendant of replying to them in writing, constituted a violation of Article 6 § 1. Not seeing any reason to depart from that precedent, the Court held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Lastly, the Court noted that the seizure of the copies of Özgür Bakış and the prohibition of its publication complained of by Mr Doğan were a secondary effect of his conviction. Consequently, it considered that there was no cause to examine separately the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded for non-pecuniary damage EUR 5,000 to Mr   Çapan and EUR 7,000 to Mr Doğan, together with EUR 1,500 to each of them for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Repetitive case   In the following case the Court has reached the same finding as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:   Mehmet Sait Kaya v. Turkey (no. 17747/03) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Mehmet Sait Kaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Gaziantep (Turkey).   He complained of delays in the payment of additional compensation for expropriation. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6   § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that there was no cause to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1. It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant and awarded him EUR 3,500 for pecuniary damage and EUR 50 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 ).   Press Contacts 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)   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. [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. [3]     Workers’ Party of Kurdistan