CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 mars 2007

.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 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sB41427CD { width:92.16pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s37F91A2F { width:153.46pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s79DDB48F { width:102.14pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s57FD9591 { width:61.46pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   192 27.3.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   A repetitive case [2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Apostolidi and Others v. Turkey (application no. 45628/99) The five applicants are Greek nationals living in Greece.   Their aunt, who had acquired Turkish nationality by marriage, died in 1984 without leaving descendants. She owned a flat in Beyoğlu   and a plot of land in Şişli was registered in the land register in her late husband’s name.   In 1987 the Turkish courts registered the land in Şişli in the name of a foundation. The applicants had the flat in Beyoğlu registered in their name in the land register after being issued with an inheritance certificate. This certificate was annulled, however, in July 2001 after another heir, of Turkish nationality, claimed title to the property. The Turkish courts annulled the certificate on the ground that Turkish nationals could not acquire property in Greece by inheritance and therefore the condition of reciprocity [3] provided for in Article 35 of the Land Code had not been met.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained about the annulment of their inheritance certificate. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention, they also complained of the length of the proceedings in question.   The Court held unanimously that there had not been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 with regard to the land in Şişli, as the applicants had not owned a possession within the meaning of the Convention. It held unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 with regard to the flat in Beyoğlu.   The Court held, further, that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings, which had lasted over ten years, and found that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicants’ other complaints. The Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and reserved it accordingly. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Asfuroğlu and Others v. Turkey (nos. 36166/02, 36249/02, 36263/02, 36272/02, 36277/02, 36319/02, 36339/02 and 38616/02) The ten applicants are Turkish nationals who live in Hatay (Turkey).   The case concerned plots of land bought by the applicants near the coast in Hatay, where they built houses, restaurants and hotels. The land was expropriated by the State on the ground that it was in a coastal area.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained that the authorities deprived them of their land without compensation.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in each case and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage. In respect of pecuniary damage, the Court awarded the applicants a total of 440,000 euros (EUR) (sums ranging from EUR 25,000 to EUR 80,000). In respect of costs and expenses, the Court awarded the applicants EUR 500 in each case. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Duyum v. Turkey (no. 57963/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Ahmet Duyum, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Istanbul.   On 22 May 1996 Mr Duyum was taken into police custody on suspicion of having committed a murder. On 7 June 2000, there being insufficient evidence to convict him, he was acquitted and released from prison. He was subsequently awarded compensation.   Relying, in particular, on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Duyum complained about the length of his detention on remand and the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1 and awarded Mr Duyum EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 11 Karaçay v. Turkey (no. 6615/03)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Erhan Karaçay, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Istanbul.   He is an electrician and at the material time was a member of the local branch of the trade union Yapı Yol Sen , which is affiliated to Kesk ( Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – Trades Union Confederation of Public Sector Employees).   In December 2002 the applicant was given a disciplinary sanction in the form of a reprimand for taking part in a demonstration in September 2002 called by Kesk to protest about the reduction in civil servants’ salaries.   Relying, in particular, on Articles 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained that he was given a disciplinary penalty for taking part in a demonstration and complained further of the lack of a domestic remedy under Turkish law by which to challenge the disciplinary measure.   The Court found that the penalty imposed on the applicant, however minimal, was such as to deter trade union members from legitimately participating in strikes or actions to defend the interests of their members. It considered that the reprimand imposed on the applicant had not been “necessary in a democratic society” and held unanimously that there had therefore been a breach of Article 11.   Noting that Turkish law did not provide for any remedy by which to review the lawfulness of a disciplinary measure, the Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 13.   The Court held that the finding of a violation provided in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage which the applicant may have suffered.   Talat Tunç v. Turkey (no. 32432/96)   Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) The applicant, Talat Tunç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958. At the material time he was living in Yeleğen (Turkey), and was a farmer.   In September 1994 the applicant was arrested and questioned in connection with the murder of his mother, who had been beaten to death. He denied the facts at first but finally confessed to killing his mother following an argument during which he had got very angry and had been under the influence of alcohol.   He was committed for trial before Alaşehir Assize Court for matricide. He stated his intention to defend himself and pleaded not guilty. He alleged, among other things, that he had confessed to the crime after being tortured. In April 1995 the Assize Court sentenced Mr Tunç to the death penalty, which was commuted to a 30-year prison sentence.   The applicant appealed on points of law and asked to be assisted by a lawyer. He was informed that he would be officially assigned a lawyer. On 2 November 1995 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant’s conviction in his absence and in the absence of his officially assigned lawyer.   After benefiting from an amnesty law, the applicant was released in December 2000.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant alleged that he had not had a fair trial because he had not had a lawyer to defend him.   The Court found that it had not been established that the applicant had waived his right to the benefit of the advice of an officially assigned lawyer. In view of the severity of the penalty risked by Mr Tunç, he should have had the benefit of free legal assistance. In those circumstances the Court held unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) and awarded Mr Tunç EUR 8,000   for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage and EUR 2,340 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)       Repetitive case   In the following case the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:   Fehmi Koç v. Turkey (no. 71354/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Fehmi Koç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and is currently detained in Diyarbakır Prison.   On 12 March 1995 Mr Koç was taken into police custody on suspicion that he was a member of an illegal organisation. He was convicted on 3 June 1999 and sentenced to life imprisonment.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Koç complained about the length and unfairness of the proceedings against him and claimed that the national security court which tried and convicted him was not independent and impartial, owing to the presence of a military judge on the bench.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the applicant’s complaint concerning the alleged lack of independence and impartiality of the state security court and that it was unnecessary to examine the remainder of the complaint. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicants, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Öztunç v. Turkey (no. 74039/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   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 Convention. 3 The notion of reciprocity, recognised in Turkish law, is a principle according to which States shall mutually secure equivalent rights to their respective nationals.