CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 30 juin 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 }   527 30.06.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT KARA v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Kara v. Turkey (application no. 22766/04).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the applicant’s criminal conviction for deciding to go on hunger strike and distributing leaflets in protest against F-type prisons.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 313   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   2,300 for costs and expenses. It further held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. ( The judgment is available only in French. )   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Mr   İsmail Kara, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Istanbul. He is the president of Anadolu TAYAD, the Anatolian Solidarity Association for Prisoners’ Families ( Anadolu Tutuklu ve Hükümlü Aileleri Yardımlaşma Derneği ).   On 29 November 2000 the association’s executive committee decided to go on hunger strike to support the similar action taken by prisoners in protest at their transfer to F-type prisons.   The Üsküdar public prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against Mr Kara on 8 February 2001, on the basis of the Associations Act (Law no. 2908).   On 27 December 2002 the Criminal Court found Mr Kara guilty of organising a hunger strike and distributing leaflets and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment, which was later commuted to a criminal fine. The judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 2 June 2004. It was decided that the admissibility and merits of the case would be examined at the same time.   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), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 10, the applicant alleged that his criminal conviction for distributing leaflets and deciding to go on hunger strike had infringed his freedom of expression.   Decision of the Court   The interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression as a result of his criminal conviction had had a basis in law and pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder.   Mr Kara had been seeking to raise public awareness of issues that had already been brought to public attention by the mass media, namely hunger strikes in prisons and detention conditions in F-type prisons, in which, under the new prison regime, dormitories had been replaced by living units for one to three prisoners.   His actions – distributing leaflets and the hunger strike – had not incited the public to go on hunger strike or use violence but had been carried out to show solidarity with prisoners, among them a close relative of his, on a matter of topical interest in Turkish society.   Mr Kara’s criminal conviction had therefore been disproportionate to the aim pursued and had not been necessary in a democratic society, in breach of Article 10.     ***   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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.