CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 9 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA7249FE7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.3pt; text-align:justify } .sE94AE824 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     360   9.7.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SEHER KARATAS v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Seher Karatas v. Turkey (application no. 33179/96).   The Court held unanimously that:   ● the Government’s preliminary objection of failure to comply with the six-months’ time- limit had to be dismissed; ● there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights; ● there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the National Security Court.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 4,500   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     1.     Principal facts   Seher Karataş is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Istanbul. She was the publisher and senior editor of the fortnightly newspaper Gençliğin Sesi (The Voice of Youth).   The 14th edition of the newspaper published on 14 July 1994 carried an article by D.B. under the heading “We must turn our attention to the system itself” ( Düzenin kendisine yönelmeliyiz ). The article was aimed at young people and called in particular for union with the working-class to combat unemployment and poverty. Criticism was levelled at a system said to be heading towards instability and crisis.   In her capacity as senior editor, Ms Karataş was charged with inciting the people to hatred and hostility, contrary to Article 312 §§ 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code. On 13 July 1995 the National Security Court, whose three-member bench included a military judge, convicted the applicant and sentenced her to one year and eight months’ imprisonment and a fine of 433,333 Turkish liras (TRL). It converted the prison sentence into a fine of TRL   3,458,333. The National Security Court found that the aim of the article taken as a whole had been to generate hatred and hostility in society.   By a judgment of 25 September 1995 the Court of Cassation upheld the conviction. It did not deliver its judgment formally or serve a full copy on the applicant. On 12   March 1996 the public prosecutor served the applicant with a demand for payment of the fine and sent a reminder on 7 May 1996 when she failed to pay. On 2 July 1996 he informed her that a warrant had been issued for her arrest. The applicant obtained a copy of the judgment of the Court of Cassation on 3 May 1996 and paid the fine on 30 October 1996.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 9 May 1996 and declared partly admissible on 13 March 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), judges ,   and also Lawrence Early , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention that her criminal conviction constituted a violation of her freedom of expression. Relying on Article 6 § 1 she also complained of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the National Security Court.   Decision of the Court   Government’s preliminary objection   The Government had maintained that the application was inadmissible for failure to comply with the six-months’ time-limit set out in Article 35 of the Convention. They submitted that the applicant or her lawyer should have contacted the registry of the Court of Cassation to find out the result of her appeal.   The Court observed that under Turkish law, although Article 33 of the Code of Criminal Procedure required service of judicial decisions delivered in the absence of those concerned, in practice judgments of the Court of Cassation in criminal cases were not served on the parties.   The Court noted that in the case before it the Court of Cassation’s judgment of 25 September 1995, which was the final domestic decision, was not formally delivered, still less served on the applicant or her lawyer. After the judgment had been lodged with the registry of the court of first instance on 4 October 1995, the Istanbul Public Prosecutor’s Office served a demand on the applicant for payment of the fine that had been imposed on her on 12 March 1996. The Court held that on the facts it would not be consistent with the objects and purpose of Article   35 to hold that, for the purposes of the six-months’ time-limit, time began to run when the applicant received the demand for payment from the Public Prosecutor’s Office, since she was not served with any documents between the date of her appeal to the Court of Cassation and the date she received the demand for payment. In addition, when the periods concerned were examined as a whole, there had been no failure on her part to use due diligence.   Consequently, the Court dismissed the Government’s preliminary objection.   Article 10 of the Convention   The Court found that the applicant’s conviction amounted to an interference with her right to freedom of expression and that that interference was prescribed by a provision of the Criminal Code and pursued two legitimate aims: the prevention of disorder and the prevention of crime. In that connection, the Court took into account the sensitive nature of the fight against terrorism and the need for the authorities to be vigilant in clamping down on acts liable to increase violence.   As to whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society, the Court said that in making that assessment it had to take into account the fundamental role played by the press in the proper functioning of a political democracy. It noted that the published article – as regards both content and the terms employed – had taken the form of a political speech. Although it contained, inter alia , accusations and scathing remarks on the policy of the Turkish Government, the Court considered that the article was essentially an appeal to young people to take part in the combat of the “Turkish working class” to secure an end to unemployment and poverty through “general strikes and resistance”. It reiterated in that connection that the Convention allowed very few restrictions on freedom of expression in the sphere of political speech or questions of general interest. The fact that such an appeal for action was apparently incompatible with the criminal law of the Turkish State did not make it contrary to democratic rules, especially as it was scarcely distinguishable from appeals made by political movements in other member States of the Council of Europe.   In addition, the Court noted that the Turkish Government had not pointed to any passages containing a vindication of acts of terrorism, an incitement to hatred between citizens, or a call for violence or bloody revenge. The Court also took into account the severity of the interference that had led to the applicant’s being sentenced to a term of imprisonment that was subsequently converted into a fine, and to the seizure of that edition of the newspaper. Accordingly, it found that the interference had not been necessary in a democratic society and that the conviction and sentence had been disproportionate to the aims pursued.   Consequently, the Court unanimously held that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.   Article 6 § 1 of the Convention   With regard to the complaint that the applicant had not had a fair trial owing to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the National Security Court, the Court reiterated that certain aspects of the status of military judges sitting in the National Security Court made their independence and impartiality questionable. They remained members of the army which in turn took its orders from the executive. The Court found in that connection that it was understandable that the applicant, a civilian charged with inciting the people to hatred or hostility on the basis of a distinction according to social class or regional background, should be concerned at the prospect of appearing before a court whose members included a professional military officer. Her fear that the National Security Court might not be independent and impartial could appear justified to an objective observer.   Consequently, the Court unanimously held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   ***   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] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.