CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 16 juillet 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s289A4F99 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s1ED9948 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } 572 16.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar Decision     Ocalan v. Turkey (application no. 5980/07)   Unanimously: application inadmissible   TURKISH AUTHORITIES’ REFUSAL TO REOPEN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS DID NOT impede EXECUTION OF European Court of Human Rights JUDGMENT, as supervised by THE Committee of Ministers     Principal facts   The applicant, Abdullah Öcalan, who was born in 1949, is currently held in İmralı prison (Mudanya, Bursa, Turkey). He was the leader of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an armed separatist movement.   In February 1999 he was arrested in Kenya, remanded in custody, and charged by the prosecutor of the Ankara State Security Court with engaging in activities to bring about the separation of part of the national territory. Mr Öcalan acknowledged that he had founded the PKK and had been its decision-maker as leader of the movement. He also admitted that the Turkish authorities had correctly estimated, or even under-estimated, the number of people killed and wounded in the PKK’s armed actions since 1978 – with the deaths amounting to 4,472 civilians, 3,874 servicemen, 247 police officers and 1,225 village guards [1] .   The applicant stated that he was prepared to cooperate in order to put an end to the PKK’s   armed struggle, adding that with the evolution of the situation he had changed his target and now limited his demands to autonomy or to recognition of Kurdish cultural rights within a democratic society.   At a hearing of 23 June 1999 the judge appointed to replace the military judge sat for the first time in the Ankara State Security Court. On 29 June the court found Mr Öcalan guilty of carrying out actions calculated to bring about the separation of a part of Turkish territory, with a view to creating a Marxist-Leninist Kurdish State, and of forming and leading an armed terrorist gang. It sentenced him to death.   That decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation, which stressed that the applicant also led the political (ERNK) and armed (ARNK) wings of the PKK, the main funding for which came from armed robberies and trafficking in arms and drugs, and that he incited violence in his broadcast speeches.   With the 2002 amendment to the Constitution the death penalty in peacetime was abolished and Mr Öcalan’s death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.   In a final judgment of 12 May 2005 [2] the European Court of Human Rights took the view that the proceedings before the State Security Court concerning Mr Öcalan had not complied with the requirements of Article 6 on account of difficulties he had encountered – especially restrictions on lawyers’ visits – and the lack of independence and impartiality of the State   Security Court on account of the presence of a military judge for part of the proceedings. The Court indicated that “a retrial or a reopening of the case ... represent[ed] in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation”.   Mr Öcalan’s application for the reopening of the proceedings was rejected in May   2006 by the Ankara Assize Court, but the Istanbul Assize Court refused to abide by that decision, pointing out the binding nature of Strasbourg judgments and Turkey’s obligations under Article 46 of the Convention (binding force and execution of judgments), which took precedence over ordinary laws under the Turkish Constitution [3] . On the merits, the Istanbul Assize Court found that no investigative measure or additional hearing were necessary in order to reach a decision, observing that even without the violations found by the European Court of Human Rights the applicant’s sentence would not have been any different. The applicant’s request to be retried was thus dismissed.   The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe [4] , which had been asked by counsel for the applicant to order Turkey to guarantee him a new trial, concluded on 15   February   2007 that Turkey had fulfilled its obligations under Article 46 and decided to close its examination of the execution of the European Court’s judgment.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14   (prohibition of discrimination) and 46 (binding force and execution of judgments), the applicant complained about the Turkish courts’ refusal to reopen the criminal proceedings that had led to his conviction and sentence following the finding of a violation by the European Court of Human Rights. He further alleged that the procedure for the execution of the European   Court’s judgment in Turkey had breached Article 6.   The application was lodged on 19 January 2007.   The decision on admissibility was given on 6 July 2010 by a Chamber composed of seven judges:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), Guido Raimondi (Italy), Judges,   and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar.     Decision of the Court   Complaint that the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 12   May   2005 was not properly executed   It was the Committee of Ministers and not the European Court which had the task of examining whether States had complied with its judgments. It was, however, possible that the measures taken by a State to remedy a violation found by the Court might raise a new problem that had not been addressed by the judgment.   Moreover, while States were free, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, to choose how to fulfil their obligations under Article 46, the Court sometimes found it useful to indicate the type of measure to be taken in order to put an end to the situation that had given rise to the violation.   While it was not within the Court’s remit to call specifically for the reopening of proceedings in that context, it was entitled to indicate, in cases where an individual had been convicted and sentenced after an unfair trial, that a new trial or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested, would represent in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation. Sometimes the very nature of the violation did not leave any choice as to the measures to be taken.   In Mr Öcalan’s case the Committee of Ministers had concluded that the re-examination by the Istanbul Assize Court fulfilled the obligations arising from Article 46 with regard to the requisite individual measures and had decided to close its examination. The Court noted that no new factual or legal elements had been put forward by the applicant and that the execution procedure at issue had not given rise to any new fact.   The Court therefore dismissed this complaint, not being able to examine it without encroaching upon the powers of the Committee of Ministers.   Complaint that the Turkish proceedings for the execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 12 May 2005 had breached Article 6   The applicant had alleged that the domestic proceedings concerning his application for a retrial following the Court’s judgment had breached Article   6.   The Court reiterated in that connection that someone who applied for his case to be reopened and whose sentence had become final was not “charged with a criminal offence” within the meaning of Article 6, which was therefore not applicable.   The Court took the view that the proceedings concerning the applicant’s application for a retrial, following the finding of a violation by the Court, were equivalent to proceedings for the reopening or review of criminal proceedings under Turkish law.   As Article 6 was not applicable, the Court rejected that complaint.   ****   The decision is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site . To receive the Court’s press releases, you can subscribe to the Court’s RSS feeds .   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   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] in 6,036 armed attacks, 3,071   bombings, 388 armed robberies and 1,046 abductions. [2] Öcalan v. Turkey [Grand Chamber], no. 46221/99 [3] amended Article 10 of the Turkish Constitution [4] As soon as a judgment becomes final it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe which supervises its execution. Additional information on the execution process can be found at www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution .