CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 11 juillet 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sE13D6592 { margin-left:10.52pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:17.83pt; font-family:serif } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     365   11.7.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF GÖÇ v. TURKEY   In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 11 July 2002 in the case of Göç v. Turkey (application no. 36590/97), the European Court of Human Rights held:   by nine votes to eight, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the absence of an oral hearing in the domestic proceedings concerning the applicant’s compensation claim; unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 , given that the Principal Public Prosecutor had submitted to the Court of Cassation an opinion on the merits of the applicant’s appeal and that this opinion had not been communicated to the applicant.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 2,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,500 for costs and expenses.   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Mehmet Göç, a Turkish national, was born in 1956 and lives in İzmir.   Mr Göç 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 against the Treasury for compensation in respect of his unlawful detention, relying on the statutory compensation scheme laid down in Law no. 466. The domestic court, without holding a hearing, awarded the applicant 10,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) in compensation. He appealed to the Court of Cassation on the ground that the amount awarded was insufficient. The Treasury also appealed against the decision. The Principal Public Prosecutor submitted an opinion to the Court of Cassation advising that both appeals be dismissed. This opinion was not communicated to the applicant. The Court of Cassation, without holding a hearing, upheld the award made by the lower court.   In the Convention proceedings, the applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1, 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 Principal Public Prosecutor.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   On 9 November 2000, the European Court of Human Rights (former Fourth Section) held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 regarding the applicant’s 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. Mr Göç (on 15 January 2001) and the respondent Government (on 12 February 2001) both requested, under Article 43 of the Convention, that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber. 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 Principal Public Prosecutor in proceedings before the Court of Cassation and the legal effect of his opinion.   On 5 September 2001 the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted to refer the case.   Judgment was given by a Grand Chamber of 17 judges, 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), Riza 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   and also Paul Mahoney , Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [1]   Complaint   The applicant complained, under Article 6 of the Convention, that his right to a fair hearing was breached in that a)     he was denied an oral hearing on his compensation claim and b)   the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor was not communicated to him.   Decision of the Court   Scope of the Case   The Court confirmed that, pursuant to Article 43 of the Convention, the whole ‘case’ had been referred to it to be decided afresh by means of a new judgment. The Court therefore rejected the applicant’s plea that it could not consider the respondent Government’s arguments on the role of the Principal Public Prosecutor and the legal effect of his opinion (see above) since they had not made any submissions on these matters at the admissibility and merits stages of the proceedings before the original Chamber.   Article 6   The Court, unlike the original Chamber (see above), considered that the applicant’s complaint concerning the absence of an oral hearing should be considered separately on the merits since it was distinct from his complaint concerning the non-communication of the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor.   The Court further observed that Article 6 was applicable since the applicant’s claim was based on a right to compensation under a statutory scheme. The subject matter of his action before the domestic courts was thus pecuniary in nature and the outcome of the domestic proceedings was decisive of his right to compensation.   1.     Lack of an oral hearing   The Court concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances which justified dispensing with an oral hearing on the applicant’s compensation claim. In its opinion, the applicant should have been afforded an opportunity to explain orally to the first instance court the moral damage which his detention entailed for him in terms of distress and anxiety. These were not matters of a technical nature which could have been dealt with properly on the basis of the case file alone. For the Court, the administration of justice and the accountability of the State would have been better served in the applicant’s case by affording him the right to explain his personal situation in a hearing before the domestic court subject to public scrutiny. This factor outweighed the considerations of speed and efficiency on which, according to the Government, Law no. 466 was based.   For these reasons, the Court found that Article 6 had been breached.   2.     Non-communication of the Principal Public Prosecutor’s opinion   The Court agreed with the original Chamber that the applicant’s arguments under this head of complaint disclosed a breach of Article 6 of the Convention. It reaffirmed its established case-law that the right to an adversarial procedure means in principle the opportunity of the parties to a civil or a criminal trial to have knowledge of and comment on all evidence adduced or observations filed, even by an independent member of the national legal service, such as the Principal Public Prosecutor in the instant case, with a view to influencing the Court’s decision. The Principal Public Prosecutor’s opinion, even though it advocated rejection of the applicant’s and the Treasury’s appeal, undermined his prospects of success before the Court of Cassation. The Court also rejected the Government’s argument that it would have been open to the applicant to consult the case file at the Court of Cassation and to obtain a copy of the opinion. For the Court, it was incumbent on the registry of the Court of Cassation, as a matter of fairness, to inform the applicant that the opinion had been filed and that he could comment on it in writing.   The Court, like the original Chamber, found that Article 6 § 1 had accordingly been breached.       Judges Wildhaber, Costa, Ress, Türmen, Bîrsan, Jungwiert, Maruste and Ugrekhelidze expressed a joint partly dissenting opinion and Judge Ress expressed a partly dissenting opinion joined by Judge Maruste. These opinions are annexed to the judgment.   ***   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] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.