CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 septembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA2E0D2C4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:1.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s9588166 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:1.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   649 15.09.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] Saime Özcan v. Turkey (application no. 22943/04 ) Kaya and Seyhan v. Turkey (application no. 30946/04 )     INFRINGMENTS OF TRADE UNION FREEDOM   Violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights in both cases Violation of Article 13 (effective remedy) in the case of Kaya and Seyhan v. Turkey     Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant in the first case 500   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,840 for costs and expenses. In the second case, the Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Principal facts   The applicants are three Turkish nationals, Ms Saime Özcan (born in 1963 and living in İzmir) and Ms Güldeniz Kaya and Mr Ahmet Seyhan (born in 1964 and 1956 respectively and living in Mersin). All three were penalised for participating, as teachers and members of the trade union Eğitim Sen , in national days of strike action organised by the trade union in December 2000 and December 2003. Ms Özcan was given a suspended criminal sentence (a prison term of over three months plus a fine; the former was eventually also commuted to a fine) and was barred from public service for two and a half months. The effects of this criminal penalty continued for several years until it was set aside in 2007 following the entry into force of the new Criminal Code. Ms Kaya and Mr Seyhan received disciplinary warnings.   Complaints and procedure   The three applicants contended that their right to freedom of association within the meaning of Article 11 had been breached as a result of the criminal penalty and warnings they had received. Relying also on Article 13, Ms Kaya and Mr Seyhan further maintained that no remedy had been available to them in Turkey by which to challenge the measure taken against them. The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25   May and 30   July 2004 respectively.   Decision of the Court   Article 11   The Court ruled that the penalties complained of, although very light in the case of Ms Kaya and Mr Seyhan, had been such as to dissuade trade union members from legitimate participation in strikes or other trade union action and had not been “necessary in a democratic society”. There had therefore been a breach of the applicants’ right to freedom to demonstrate.   Article 13   The Court took the view that no safeguards had been afforded to Ms Kaya and Mr Seyhan to prevent possible abuse or to simply allow a review of the lawfulness of disciplinary measures such as the one imposed on them. In fact, the Constitution and the law made no provision for judicial review of warnings or reprimands. No evidence had been adduced, either, of the existence of any authoritative case-law to the opposite effect pre-dating the applicants’ complaint to the European Court.     ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments, with the composition of the Court, are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 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.