CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 novembre 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 } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sEABE4E75 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .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 }   820 03.11.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Davran v. Turkey (application no. 18342/03)   ACCESS TO THE COURT OF CASSATION HINDERED BY FAILURE TO NOTIFY A JUDGMENT   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 1,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   (The judgment is available only in French)     Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Ahmet Davran, was born in 1960 and lives in Ankara.   On 30 May 1996 he was sentenced in absentia by the Midyat Assize Court to a period of imprisonment for abuse of office. Mr Davran lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation, which set aside the judgment on 15   November 1997. The applicant could not be found, but he nevertheless filed written supplementary defence pleadings on 7 August 2000. Research indicated that on 1   May 2001 he was working as a lawyer in Bursa.   By a judgment of 31 May 2001 the assize court sentenced him in absentia to four years’ imprisonment for fraud and abuse of office. The assize court asked the police to find Mr Davran.   Since another set of criminal proceedings had been brought against him for submitting a false lawyer’s certificate, the applicant was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention in Istanbul Prison on 18   September 2001; the Midyat Assize Court was not informed.   Having been unable to locate the applicant, the Assize Court decided to notify the judgment of 31 May 2001 through publication in the Official Gazette, under section 28 of the Notification Act. In the absence of an appeal on points of law, the judgment became final on 11 January 2002.   On an unspecified date the Assize Court noted that the applicant was still detained in Istanbul Prison. It then transmitted the final judgment to the Istanbul prosecutor for execution, and Mr Davran learned of his conviction and sentence on 16 April 2002, when the writ of execution was served on him.   On 18 April 2002 he brought proceedings before the assize court, challenging the validity of the notification and requesting leave to appeal on points of law. He alleged that the publication of a judgment in the Official Gazette had not had legal effect and that the judgment could have been served on him in prison.   By a judgment of 2 May 2002 his application was dismissed by the assize court; the notification was declared to be compatible with the law and, consequently, the application for an appeal on points of law was ruled inadmissible, since it had been submitted after expiry of the legal time-limit of fifteen days following publication of the judgment. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 26 September 2002.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 § 1, Mr Davran alleged that the dismissal of his appeal on points of law for failure to comply with the procedural time-limits had infringed his right of access to a court.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 24 May 2003.   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 Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   The Court reiterated that a State which instituted courts of cassation - bodies which played a crucial role in criminal proceedings - was required to ensure that persons amenable to the law would enjoy before these courts the fundamental guarantees contained in Article 6.   Admittedly, Mr Davran had helped to make application of the Notification Act more difficult, by absconding for the four months following the delivery of the judgment against which he intended to lodge an appeal on points of law. However, as the applicant had submitted, it was not section 28 of the Notification Act which was applicable in this case, but section 19 – requiring the notification of a judgment to a prisoner though the prison authorities; this would have given him an effective right of access to the Court of Cassation.   The Court further noted the shortcomings in the arrangements for publication of the judgment, and replied to the submissions of the Turkish authorities, which alleged that it was impossible for the judicial authorities in Midyat to be informed of Mr Davran’s arrest in Istanbul; the Court pointed out that it was incumbent on the State to put in place an information network between the judicial authorities across the country.   Mr Davran had thus suffered an excessive restriction of his right of access to a court. In consequence, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1.   ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( 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.