CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 novembre 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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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   689 14.11.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT METIN TURAN v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Metin Turan v. Turkey (application no. 20868/02).   The Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 2,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,317 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Metin Turan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Yozgat (Turkey). At the material time he was a civil servant in the Ministry of Public Works in Tunceli.   As a member of the local political party EMEP (Labour Party), the applicant stood for election as mayor of Tunceli in 1999. In August 2001 he co-founded the trade union Enerji-Yapı Yol Sen, attached to the Federation of public-sector trade unions (the “KESK”), and was elected to its board.   In October 2001 the governor of the region under the state of emergency requested the Minister for Public Works to transfer the applicant to another region on the basis of Article 4(g) of Legislative Decree no. 285 and Article 3(a) of Legislative Decree no. 430. In support of his request he referred to Mr Turan’s participation in a number of events between 1999 and 2000: his presence at the burial of a member of the PKK; his speech at International Women’s Day; and his part in a strike at the workplace. The governor asserted that Mr Turan had continually taken part in actions staged by the KESK which he regarded as dangerous and as constituting a breach of the peace. On 15 March 2002 Mr Turan was transferred to Yozgat.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10 April 2002 and declared partly inadmissible on 14 June 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Ireneu Cabral Barretto (Portuguese), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), judges , and also Stanley Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant alleged, relying on Articles 11 and 13, that the decision to transfer him constituted interference with his right to freedom of assembly and association and complained that he had no remedy by which to complain of the decision taken against him.   Decision of the Court   Article 11 The Court acknowledged that the applicant’s civil-servant status implied the possibility of his being transferred to another department or another town in accordance with the requirements of the public service. However, the transfer request made by the governor stated clearly that he “had continually taken part in actions staged by the KESK. Accordingly, the fact that he occupies a post in the region under the state of emergency is dangerous and constitutes a breach of the peace”. Even if the applicant had been able to participate in trade-union activities after his transfer by travelling to Tunceli, the Court considered that the decision to transfer him had been taken on account of his union membership.   Consequently, the decision to transfer him had not, contrary to the Turkish Government’s assertions, been made as part of the proper running and management of the public service, but could be regarded as interference by the authorities with the applicant’s right to engage in trade-union activities. Such a decision had not been necessary in a democratic society.   Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 11.       Article 13 The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 13 on account of the absence of a remedy under Turkish law before a national court by which to dispute the measures taken against the applicant by the governor of the region under the state of emergency.   Judges Mularoni and Costa expressed a concurring opinion, and Judge Türmen a dissenting opinion. These opinions are attached to the judgment.   ***   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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.