CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 25 septembre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s70AA3140 { width:328.89pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE9E4B253 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sF92F5487 { width:269.35pt; display:inline-block } .s2EAF01D8 { width:23.15pt; display:inline-block } .s26F30A88 { width:55.83pt; display:inline-block } .s9E06ECD9 { width:5.87pt; display:inline-block } .s87F67951 { width:29.16pt; display:inline-block } .sE39C4D1 { width:90.59pt; display:inline-block } .s81DE2807 { width:1.9pt; display:inline-block } .s90832BB9 { width:96.49pt; display:inline-block } .s2458A595 { width:21.23pt; display:inline-block } .sEC7AFAB8 { width:61.91pt; display:inline-block } .s1611069C { width:71.26pt; display:inline-block } .sE0EDBBA8 { width:69.92pt; display:inline-block } .sD0C5D295 { width:74.59pt; display:inline-block } .s766FC3FD { width:62.59pt; display:inline-block } .s86122D5F { width:27.25pt; display:inline-block } .sBD216BB6 { width:69.23pt; display:inline-block } .s74EEEBA0 { width:99.2pt; display:inline-block } .sF2F68EC1 { width:25.85pt; display:inline-block } .s2188112C { width:143.48pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s718CBA55 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:1.15pt; text-align:justify } .s2E85AE6E { width:72.09pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9953F0DA { width:41.4pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s84FB7118 { width:68.09pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sAA681A57 { width:59.4pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2427C688 { width:66.74pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA0632450 { width:78.09pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9CDB2B7F { width:77.4pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s7E2EEF7F { width:71.41pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s946E05C0 { width:16.04pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s192D77D1 { width:80.75pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s98D4050 { width:96.09pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC2DC2ACA { width:79.41pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC0320DFF { width:78.76pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA698C744 { width:88.76pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s327E8B1E { width:55.41pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBF4BDB7 { width:62.08pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4954B46 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; text-align:justify } .sE8B00B2A { width:55.72pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB0389500 { width:148.13pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   662   25.9.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 18 Chamber judgments (only the friendly settlements are final [1] ):   SECTION 1   Violation Article 6 § 1 In the following judgments, the applicants, all Turkish nationals, were accused of being members of the illegal armed organisation Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way) and of involvement in activities undertaken in the name of Dev-Yol including, except in the case of Kızılöz v. Turkey, bomb attacks and/or killings. They complained, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), about the lack of independence and impartiality of the Ankara Martial Law Court (except in the case of Şahin v. Turkey ) and the length of the criminal proceedings against them (indicated in brackets [2] ).   Concerning the length of criminal proceedings, in all 13 judgments the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. Concerning the independence and impartiality of the Martial Law Court, the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in 10 judgments and in respect of two of the three applicants in Arap Yalgın and others v. Turkey. It held, unanimously, that there had been no violation in Gülşen and Halil Yasin Ketenoğlu v. Turkey under this head .   The Court awarded the amounts listed below in French francs (FRF) for non-pecuniary damage and, where applicants had submitted claims, costs and expenses. In the case of Yakış v. Turkey the Court held that the finding in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in English.)   non-pecuniary   costs and   damage   expenses   (1)     Şahiner v. Turkey (application no. 29279/95)   100,000 FRF   15,000 FRF (almost 15 years and one month) (2)     Arı v. Turkey (no. 29281/95)   100,000 FRF (almost 14 years and six months) (3)     Mehmet Ali Yılmaz v. Turkey (no. 29286/95)   100,000 FRF (almost 15 years and one month) (4)     Gülşen and Halil Yasin Ketenoğlu v. Turkey   100,000 FRF 15,000 FRF (nos.   29360/95 and 29361/95) (15 years for the first applicant and 20 years for the second applicant) (5)     Selçuk Yıldırım v. Turkey (no. 30451/96)   100,000 FRF   15,000 FRF (almost 14 years and 10 months) (6)     Tamkoç v. Turkey (no. 31881/96)   100,000 FRF   8,000 FRF (almost 14 years and nine months) (7)     Yalgın v. Turkey (no. 31892/96)   100,000 FRF   8,000 FRF (almost 14 years and nine months) (8)     Güneş v. Turkey (no. 31893/96)   100,000 FRF   8,000 FRF (almost 14 years and nine months) (9)     Şahin v. Turkey (no. 31961/96)   100,000 FRF   (almost 16 years and three months) (10)     Kızılöz v. Turkey (no. 32962/96)   80,000 FRF (almost 15 years) (11)     Fikret Doğan v. Turkey (no. 33363/96)   100,000 FRF (almost 15 years and one month) (12)     Yakış v. Turkey (no. 33368/96)     20,000 FRF (almost 15 years and one month) (13)     Arap Yalgın and others v. Turkey (no. 33370/96) 100,000 FRF   13,000 FRF (between 14 years nine months and 15 years)   (14)     Ercan v. Turkey (no. 31246/96)   Friendly settlement Ayfer Ercan, a Turkish national, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for membership of an illegal organisation, the Leninist Guerrilla Troops, was arrested in Istanbul. She complained under Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) that she was tortured in police custody. She further complained, relying on Article 5 §§ 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) and 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) about the length (15 days) and lawfulness of her detention. Finally she complained, relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing), that the Istanbul State Security Court lacked independence and impartiality and that she was denied the assistance of a lawyer during her questioning by the police, the public prosecutor and the State Security Court judge.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 30,000 pounds sterling (GBP) inclusive of costs and expenses is to be paid to the applicant on an ex gratia basis. (The judgment is available only in English.)         Friendly settlements In the following three Turkish judgments the applicants, all Turkish nationals, complained about the length of time (indicated in brackets) they were held in police custody, relying on Article 5 § 3.   The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which the amounts indicated below in FRF are to be paid for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damaget. ( Göktaş and others v. Turkey and Morsümbül v. Turkey are only available in French and Yıldırım and others v. Turkey is only available in English.)   (15)     Göktaş and others v. Turkey (no. 31787/96) (between seven and 10 days) Mahir Göktaş   120   000 FRF Ayşe Mine Balkanlı   120   000 FRF Özgür Zeybek   120   000 FRF Münire Apaydın   120   000 FRF Fulya Apaydın   110   000 FRF Sema Taşar   110   000 FRF Boran Şenol   110   000 FRF Erdoğan Kılıç   110   000 FRF Abdullah Yücel Karakaş   110   000 FRF Levent Kılıç   100   000 FRF Jale Kurt   100   000 FRF Aşkın Yeğin   100   000 FRF Faruk Deniz   95   000 FRF Ali Göktaş   95   000 FRF Emrah Sait Erda   85   000 FRF Hüseyin Korkut   85   000 FRF   A global sum of 35,000 FRF is to be paid for costs and expenses.   (16)     Morsümbül v. Turkey (no. 31895/96) (12 days) Ekin Morsümbül   a global sum of 35,000 FRF is to be paid to the applicant   (17)     Yıldırım and others v. Turkey (no. 37191/97) (from five to 15 days) Orhan Yıldırım, Reşit Dayan, Nasrullah Toraman, Osman Aksoy, Suphi Tutmaz, Binali Gençel, Memduh Demir, Süleyman Aksoy, Melik Demir, Abdullah Turan, Abbas Üste, Abdurrahim Çimen, Mirhan Arslan, Tahsin Özer, Selahattin Güven   A global sum of 525,000 FRF is to be paid to the applicants listed above on an ex gratia basis.   (18)     İşçi v. Turkey (no. 31849/96)       Friendly settlement Şevket İşçi, a Turkish national, complained, relying on Articles 3, 5, 6, 8 (right to respect for family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), about the destruction of his house and removal of his property by security forces.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 15,000 GBP inclusive of costs and expenses is to be paid to the applicant on an ex gratia basis. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 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] In each case the Court can only take into consideration the time that has elapsed since 28 January 1987 when Turkey recognised the right of individual petition; that is, 14 years in Halil Yasin Ketenoğlu v. Turkey eight years and 11 months in the other cases.