CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 6 mars 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD35C6159 { width:1.54pt; display:inline-block } .s38DD6A04 { width:18.2pt; display:inline-block } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     121   6.3.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING IN THE CASE OF GÖÇ v. TURKEY   Wednesday 6 March 2002 at 9.00 a.m.   The applicant   The case concerns an application brought by a Turkish national, Mehmet Göç, who was born in 1956 and lives in İzmir (Turkey).   Summary of the facts   Memet Göç, a Turkish national, was detained on 25 July 1995 on suspicion of having stolen and falsified court documents relating to a divorce case. He was released on 27 July 1995 without charge. He lodged a claim for compensation, claiming, among other things, that he had been beaten and insulted for two hours while in detention and deprived of his right to contact his family and a lawyer. He was awarded 10,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) in compensation and TRL 1,500,000 in costs. He appealed on the ground that the amount awarded was insufficient. The Treasury also appealed against the decision. The Court of Cassation upheld the award made by the lower court.   Complaint   In the Convention proceedings, the applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, that he was denied a fair hearing on the determination of his compensation claim, as no oral hearing was held and as he had no opportunity to respond to the opinion of the Public Prosecutor submitted to the Court of Cassation advising that his appeal be dismissed.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 28 April 1997. The case was referred to the Court (former Fourth Section) on 1 November 1998 and declared partly admissible on 6 April 2000.   On 9 November 2000, the Court (Section 4) held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 regarding the lack of opportunity to respond to the Public Prosecutor’s opinion and, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine the complaint concerning the lack of an oral hearing. The Court also held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage claimed and awarded the applicant FRF 10,000 for costs and expenses.       Mr Göç and the respondent Government both requested, under Article 43 of the Convention, that the case to be referred to the Grand Chamber [1] . While not opposing the Chamber’s finding concerning the role played by the Public Prosecutor, the applicant criticised its decision not to address the merits of his complaint concerning the lack of an oral hearing. He stated that, as this was his main complaint to the Court, it should have been considered separately on the merits and as a matter of priority. The Government, for their part, considered that the Chamber had incorrectly interpreted the role of the Public Prosecutor in proceedings before the Court of Cassation and the legal effect of his opinion.   The case was referred to the Grand Chamber on 5 September 2001.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Georg Ress (German), Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), Rıza Türmen (Turkish), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), judges , Nicolas Bratza (British), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (FYROMacedonia), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), substitute judges ,   and also Paul Mahoney , Registrar   Representatives of the parties   Government:   Münci Özmen , Agent , Didem Bulutlar Ulusoy , Adviser ;   Applicant:   Güney Dinç , Counsel .   Mehmet Göç will also attend the hearing.   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.     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.