CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 mars 2009

.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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   162 3.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT TEMEL AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Temel and Others v. Turkey (application no. 36458/02).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   2 of Protocol No.   1 (right to education) to the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the suspension of the applicants from university having been a disproportionate disciplinary measure in reaction to their request to introduce optional Kurdish language classes.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded each applicant 1,500   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. ( The judgment is available only in English. )   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are eighteen Turkish nationals who, at the time of the events, were students at various faculties attached to Afyon Kocatepe University in Afyon (Turkey).   On various dates between 27   December 2001 and 4 January 2002 the applicants petitioned the University requesting that optional Kurdish language classes be introduced. As a reaction to their petition, in January 2002 they were suspended from the university for a period of two terms starting from the spring, except for one of them, who, having shown remorse, was suspended for one term. The applicants requested the domestic courts to first stop the execution of the suspension decisions and then to annul them altogether. Their suspension requests were dismissed. Their requests for annulment were also initially rejected by the courts, the main arguments being that the petitions were likely to give rise to polarization on the basis of language, race, religion or denomination, and that they represented part of the PKK [2] ‘s new strategy of action of civil disobedience.   In December 2003, however, the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the lower courts’ decisions and sent the cases for re-examination to the first instance court. In May 2004, the competent court annulled the disciplinary sanctions against the applicants, finding that their petitions to the authorities for optional Kurdish language classes were fully in line with the general aim of the Turkish higher education, which was to train students in becoming objective, broad ‑ minded and respectful of human rights citizens.   In the meantime, the applicants were acquitted on charges of aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 13   August 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaint   The applicants complained about the imposition of a disciplinary sanction for having petitioned the university authorities to provide optional Kurdish language courses. Relying in particular on Article   2 of Protocol No.   1, they submitted that this sanction had infringed their freedom of thought and expression and maintained that they had been denied their right to education.   Decision of the Court   Article 2 of Protocol No. 1   The Court first observed that the applicants had been sanctioned disciplinarily for merely submitting petitions which expressed their views on the need for Kurdish language education, and requesting that Kurdish language classes be introduced as an optional module. The Court further noted that they had not committed any reprehensible act, nor had they resorted to violence or breach, or attempt to breach the peace or order in the university.   For the Court, neither the views expressed in the applicants’ petitions, nor the form in which they had been conveyed, could be construed as an activity which would lead to polarisation of the University population on the basis of language, race, religion or denomination. The Court consequently found that the imposition of such a disciplinary sanction could not be considered as reasonable or proportionate. Although these sanctions had been subsequently annulled by the administrative courts on grounds of unlawfulness, the Court found it regrettable that by that time the applicants had already missed one or two terms of their studies. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention.     Judge Cabral Barreto expressed a separate opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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 Convention, 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] The Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal armed organisation.   [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.