CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 octobre 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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA2E08F25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s777B7D40 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#008080 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .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 }   753 13.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Dayanan v. Turkey (application no. 7377/03 )   PERSON CHARGED WITH BELONGING TO HIZBULLAH HAD NO LEGAL ASSISTANCE WHILE IN POLICE CUSTODY   Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing) taken together with 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights Violation of 6 § 1     Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 1,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Seyfettin Dayanan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975. In January 2001 he was arrested and taken into police custody during operations against Hizbullah , an illegal armed organisation. He was informed of his right to remain silent and to see a lawyer at the end of the police custody period. The police officers put questions to him and Mr Dayanan remained silent.   In February 2001 he was charged with belonging to Hizbullah . On 4 December 2001, following a series of hearings during which Mr Dayanan and his lawyer denied the charges, the State Security Court sentenced him to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment.   Mr Dayanan appealed on points of law. On 18 March 2002 the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written observations on the merits of the appeal but they were not sent to the applicant or his lawyer. In a decision of 29 May 2002, in the absence of Mr Dayanan and his lawyer, the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment in question.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c), the applicant complained that he had had no legal assistance while he was in police custody and that he had not been sent a copy of the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 January 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), Kristina Pardalos (San Marino), Judges , and Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The fairness of proceedings against an accused person in custody required that he be able to obtain the whole range of services specifically associated with legal assistance: discussion of the case, organisation of the defence, collection of evidence, preparation for questioning, support to an accused in distress, and checking of the conditions of detention. Mr Dayanan, under the law then in force, had not had legal assistance while in police custody. That systematic restriction, on the basis of the relevant statutory provisions, was sufficient for a violation of Article 6 to be found even though Mr Dayanan had remained silent when questioned in police custody. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) taken together with Article 6 § 1.   Moreover, parties to adversarial proceedings were entitled to receive and discuss any document or observation submitted to the court. In view of the nature of the prosecutor’s observations and the inability of the party in question to respond to them in writing, the Court took the view that in the present case the failure to send Mr Dayanan a copy of the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation had breached his right to adversarial proceedings. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.     ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) 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) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.