CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 20 juin 2000

.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 } .sACBC61AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sBA727180 { width:35.3pt; display:inline-block } .sC7CB852C { width:34.65pt; display:inline-block } .s38DD6A04 { width:18.2pt; display:inline-block } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB4D5CB4E { width:4.94pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     443   20.6.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARING IN THE CASE OF AKKOÇ v. TURKEY   Tuesday, 20 June 2000 at 9.30 a.m.   The applicant   The case concerns an application brought by a Turkish national, Nebahat Akkoç, who was born in 1953 and lives in Adana.   Summary of the facts   On 31 October 1992, the applicant made a statement to the Diyarbakır Söz newspaper, giving an account of a meeting which had taken place on 27 October 1992 involving her, a delegation of Eğit-Sen (the Diyarbakır Branch of the Education and Science Workers Union) and the National Education Director.   The Diyarbakır Provincial Education Disciplinary Committee took a decision on 14   May 1993 blocking the applicant’s promotion as a penalty for the statement made to the newspaper. The decision was confirmed by the Diyarbakır Administrative Court on 4   October 1994. After two appeals by the applicant to the Supreme Administrative Court, the Administrative Court eventually annulled the disciplinary sanction against her on 17 February 1999.   The applicant’s husband, Zübeyir Akkoç, was of Kurdish origin and also a teacher involved in the Eğit-Sen trade union. On 13 January 1993, at about 07.00 hours, he was killed by an unknown gunman or gunmen on his way to work at a primary school.   On 27 March 1997, the prosecutor issued an indictment against Seyithan Araz for the killing of Zübeyir Akkoç. On 21 March 2000 he was acquitted.   On 13 February 1994, at about 02.00 hours, the applicant was apprehended at her home by police officers. During her ten day detention, she was allegedly subjected to torture - she claimed, among other things, that she was blindfolded, stripped, beaten, given electric shocks, doused in ice-cold and hot water, subjected to loud music and bright lights. She claimed that she was questioned about her application to the European Commission of Human Rights.   Complaints   Ms Akkoç complains about: the disciplinary proceedings brought against her in respect of a statement made by her and reported in the press (Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights); the killing of her husband by an unknown perpetrator (Article 2 of the convention); and, a lack of effective investigation (Articles 2 and 13), as well as alleging that she was deprived of her widow’s pension (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) and that her husband was a victim of discrimination (Article 14). She claims she was tortured and ill-treated by the police during detention (Article 3) and intimidated in relation to her pending application before the Commission (former Article 25 of the Convention).   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 1 November 1993. Having declared the application admissible, the Commission took evidence in July 1996 concerning the allegations of torture, ill-treatment and intimidation. Following delays in obtaining documentary evidence, it adopted a report on 23 April 1999 in which it expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been a violation of Articles 2, 3, 10 and former Article   25 of the Convention, that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 and of Article 18 and that no separate issue arose under Article   14. By twenty seven votes to two, the Commission concluded that there had been a violation of Article 13. It referred the case to the Court on 13 September 1999.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), President , Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Luigi Ferrari Bravo [1] (Italian), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Rait Maruste (Estonian), judges , Fayyaz Gölcüklü , (Turkish) ad hoc Judge , Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), substitute judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government:   Deniz Akçay , Co- Agent , Ayşen Emüler , Gülhan Akyüz and                         Kazim Varol , Advisers ;   Applicant:   Aisling Reidy , Counsel , Mark Muller , Sezgin Tanrikulu   and Sedat Aslantaş , Advisers .   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] Judge elected in respect of San Marino.