CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 25 juillet 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s9A1F34BB { width:21.91pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s12209993 { width:19.9pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     392   25.7.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Turkey and Spain   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing two Chamber judgments, of which only Önder v. Turkey is final. [1]   Section 3   (1)     Önder v. Turkey (no. 31136/96)                    Friendly settlement Yalcın Önder is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in İzmir.   He was arrested by the police and held at police headquarters in İzmir. On 27 January 1995 he was examined by a police doctor at the request of police headquarters. The medical report recorded that the applicant had complained, inter alia , of pains and of a loss of feeling in his right foot. On 30 January 1995 the public prosecutor ruled that he had no case to answer.   On 16 May 1995 a panel of doctors drew up a report in which they noted pains to the chest, groin, waist and an ankle and stated that the applicant’s symptoms were consistent with his allegations of ill-treatment.   The applicant lodged a complaint against the officers who had been on duty when he was in custody. On 17 April 1995 the public prosecutor ruled that they had no case to answer. The applicant appealed, without success. A fresh complaint against the police officers likewise resulted in a ruling that they had no case to answer and his appeal against that order was dismissed.   In the interim, the applicant was prosecuted for aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, namely the TDKP (Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey). He was acquitted by the İzmir National Security Court on 2 April 1997.   The applicant complains that he was subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody, contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 16,800 euros (EUR) is to be paid for any damage and costs and expenses.   Turkey has also made the following declaration: “The Government regret the occurrence, as in the present case, of individual cases of ill-treatment by the authorities of persons detained in custody notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such actions.   “It is accepted that the recourse to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of detainees constitutes a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Government undertake to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the prohibition of such acts and the obligation to carry out effective investigations are respected in the future. The Government refer in this connection to the commitments which they undertook in the Declaration agreed on in Application no. 34382/97 and reiterate their resolve to give effect to those commitments. They note that new legal and administrative measures have been adopted which have resulted in a reduction in the occurrence of ill-treatment in circumstances similar to those of the instant application as well as more effective investigations.   “The Government consider that the supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of the execution of Court judgments concerning Turkey in this and similar cases is an appropriate mechanism for ensuring that improvements will continue to be made in this context. To this end, necessary co-operation in this process will continue to take place.” (The judgment is in French only.)   Former Section 4   (2)     Perote Pellon v. Spain (no. 45238/99)             Violation Article 6 § 1 Juan Alberto Perote Pellon is a Spanish national who was born in 1938 and lives in Madrid. At the material time, he was a colonel in the reserve army. He was appointed head of operational unit at the National Defence Research Centre ( Centro superior de Estudios de Defensa Nacional ) from 1983 to 26 November 1991, when he was relieved of his duties.   On 17 June 1995 the director of the centre lodged a complaint against the applicant alleging that he had disclosed official secrets or information concerning security or national defence. The applicant was arrested the following day, charged and held in detention pending trial at Alcalá de Henares Military Prison under an order issued on 21 June 1995 by the central military investigating judge.   The applicant appealed against that order and on 12 July 1995 a bench of three judges of the Central Military Court ( tribunal militar central ), composed of S.G., the President ( auditor presidente general consejero togado ), R.G. and L.M., ( vocales togados generales auditores ), set aside part of the order charging the applicant, holding that the charge should be misappropriating legally “classified” information concerning security and national defence, not disclosing official secrets.   The bench of the Central Military court, which included R.V and R.G., heard several applications for the applicant’s release on bail. Thus, on 24 June 1996 it remanded him in custody; on 9 July 1996 it dismissed a súplica appeal and on 14 January 1997 an application for release.   In a judgment of 17 March 1997 the Constitutional Court granted the applicant amparo relief, holding that he had remained in prison without due cause since at least 21 June 1996. The applicant was released on 19 March 1997.   The applicant made an unsuccessful application for the removal of R.V. and R.G. from the bench. On 9 July 1997 a bench of the Central Military Court composed, inter alia , of its president, R.V., and R.G. as judge rapporteur, convicted the applicant and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment for disclosing official secrets or information relating to security or national defence through the misappropriation of legally classified information. He was discharged from the armed forces. His conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court on 30   March 1998 and his amparo appeal dismissed.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) that his case had not been heard by an independent and impartial court, since the trial had been conducted by two military judges who had previously heard his applications for release on bail and an appeal.   The Court noted that two of the judges of the trial court had previously sat in the case as they had upheld the decision to charge the applicant on appeal, had remanded him in custody and had dismissed his súplica appeal against that decision. It reiterated, however, that the mere fact that a judge had taken decisions before the trial could not, by itself, justify fears of bias.   The Court considered that in the circumstances of the case the impartiality of the trial court could be open to genuine doubt, as the President and judge rapporteur had played a role in the investigation that had led to the applicant’s being charged and remanded in custody. It thus considered that the applicant’s fears could be regarded as objectively justified.   The Court consequently held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction and awarded the applicant EUR 10,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is in French only.)   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of 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.