CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 23 septembre 2003

.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 } .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 } .s334CAB5A { width:32.52pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s22616DFB { width:17.89pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s3AE1637F { width:33.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF4C48169 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:288pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:center } .s18645E97 { width:16.56pt; display:inline-block } .sA8A7C3DA { width:27.88pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; 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     458   23.9.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]     (1)     Cohen and Smadja v. France (application no. 53607/99)            Friendly settlement   Alleged lack of reasons for judgment convicting the applicants   André Cohen and Gilbert Smadja are French nationals who were born in 1951 and 1943 respectively and live in Nogent-sur-Marne and Paris. They used to be the joint-managers of an old people’s home in Salins.   In 1999 they were prosecuted for untruthful or misleading advertising, for contravening temporary labour laws, forging documents and failing to keep accurate staff records. In a judgment of 17 June 1999, delivered at a hearing at which the applicants were present,   Fontainebleau Criminal Court sentenced them to a fine of 30,000 francs (approximately 4,500 euros (EUR)) each and to a 5,000 franc fine for the petty offence (approximately EUR   760).   Their lawyer stated that he had made several unsuccessful attempts to ascertain the reasons for the judgment. He submitted that the applicants had not appealed because they thought, on the basis of the – very brief – public delivery of the judgment, that they had been convicted of only one of the three main offences with which they had been charged. When they received a copy of the judgment two months later, they saw that it was worded in exactly the same way as the judgment read out at the hearing, which they had presumed was a summary of the decision.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained of the lack of reasons for the judgment in which they had been convicted and the imprecise formulation of the charges against them. They further submitted, under Article 6 § 3 (b) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters), that they had not had adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence and that as a result they had not been able to have their convictions reviewed by a higher court.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicants are to receive EUR 8,000 each for the damage sustained. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (2)     Bektaş v. Turkey (no. 41000/98)                    Friendly settlement   Right to be brought promptly before a judge after arrest   Cafer Tayyar Bektaş was a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and was at the material time a student living in Ankara. After his death in May 2001 his parents continued the case in his name.   Mr Bektaş, being suspected of terrorist activities, was arrested and taken into police custody on 23 September 1997. On 30 September 1997 he was brought before a judge, who ordered his detention pending trial. Ankara National Security Court sentenced him to death in September 1998. However, the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the National Security Court. While the proceedings were still pending Mr   Bektaş went on hunger strike. He died in May 2001.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had not been brought “promptly” before a judge after his arrest.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which Mr Bektaş’s heirs are to receive EUR   3,000 for the non-pecuniary damage sustained and for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (3)     Değirmenci and Others v. Turkey (no. 31879/96)             Friendly settlement   Length and fairness of criminal proceedings   The applicants are 37 Turkish nationals. Between 1979 and 1985 they were arrested and taken into police custody for suspected membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way). They were accused of being members of an organisation whose aim was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a Marxist-Leninist regime. They were sentenced on 19 July 1989 by Ankara Martial Law Court (S ıkıyönetim Mahkemesi ) to various terms of imprisonment exceeding 15 years. On 27 December 1995 the Court of Cassation upheld the convictions of 13 of the applicants.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, the applicants complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against them. 20 of them also alleged that they had not been tried by an independent and impartial tribunal. 20 applicants alleged, further, under Article 6 § 3 (b), that they had not had adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicants are to receive EUR   572,900 for damages, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)       Violation Article 6 § 1 (4)     Karkın v. Turkey (no. 43928/98)               Violation Article 10   Conviction of a union representative for comments made during a speech/Independence and impartiality of the national security courts   The applicant, Bayram Karkın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Ankara. At the material time he was the secretary of the transport workers’ trade union ( DİSK/Nakliyat İş Sendikası ) of Ankara.   In March 1997, during a demonstration organised by the political party HADEP (the People’s Democracy Party), Mr Karkın gave a speech in his capacity as trade unionist. In the speech he referred, among other things, to “those who want to destroy the Kurdish people with their dirty war and their massacres” and called on the people to resist capitalism and fight for the liberation of the workers and the exploited. On 7 July 1997 he was sentenced by Ankara National Security Court to one year’s imprisonment and a fine for making a speech inciting the people to hatred and hostility by creating discrimination based on membership of a social class and a race. The Court of Cassation gave judgment on 21 January 1998 upholding his conviction.   Relying on Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention, the applicant submitted that his criminal conviction had infringed his right to freedom of thought, expression and association. He further alleged a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to an independent and impartial tribunal) on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the National Security Court. Lastly, he submitted that the unfairness of the procedure in the Court of Cassation was contrary to Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention.   The Court decided to examine the applicant’s complaints of a violation of Articles 9, 10 and 11 under Article 10 of the Convention. It noted that Mr Karkın’s conviction amounted to an interference with his right to freedom of expression and that the interference was prescribed by Turkish criminal law. Having regard to the sensitivity of the security situation in south-east Turkey and to the need for the authorities to be alert to acts capable of fuelling additional violence, the Court held that the interference pursued legitimate aims, namely the protection of territorial integrity and national unity and security.   With regard to whether the applicant’s conviction had been “necessary in a democratic society”, the Court noted firstly that, given the content and the terms used, the applicant’s speech had been political in nature. It also noted that the speech had been made to a group of people at a peaceful gathering far away from the conflict zone and at a specific demonstration. These circumstances greatly limited the potential impact of the comments on “national security”, public “order” or “territorial integrity”. The Court also stressed the severity of the penalties imposed on Mr Karkın, which it found disproportionate to the aims pursued. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.   As regards the complaint about the lack of independence and impartiality of the National Security Court, the Court reiterated that certain aspects of the status of military judges raised doubts as to their independence and impartiality. They were servicemen who still belonged to the army, which in turn took its orders from the executive. In the Court’s view, a civilian facing a criminal charge in a National Security Court whose bench included a military judge had legitimate reason to fear that the court lacked independence and impartiality. Accordingly, the Court held that in trying and convicting the applicant Ankara National Security Court had not been independent and impartial and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that respect. Having regard to these conclusions, the Court did not consider it necessary to rule on the other complaints under Article 6 of the Convention.   The Court awarded Mr Karkın EUR   8,000 in just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses, less the EUR   630 already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (5)     Temel and Others v. Turkey (no. 36203/97)                Friendly settlement   Length of detention in police custody   The applicants, Sabri Temel, Mehmet Selim Acar, Mehmet Ali Aydın, Mahsun Demir, Mehmet Faruk Altındağ, Ferit Çiftçi and Ramazan Şakar, are seven Turkish nationals who were born in 1972, 1965, 1967, 1966, 1962, 1956 and 1966 respectively.   Being suspected of having participated in the illegal activities of the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), the applicants were arrested and taken into police custody on 27   November 1996, with the exception of Mr Şakar, who was arrested on 30 November 1966. On 9 December 1996 they were brought before a judge, who ordered their detention pending trial. On 29 December 1997 Izmir National Security Court sentenced Mr Aydın, Mr   Şakar, Mr Temel and Mr Demir to three years and nine months’ imprisonment, among other penalties. It sentenced Mr Acar to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment and acquitted Mr   Altındağ and Mr Çiftçi.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, the applicants complained of the length of their detention in police custody.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which each applicant is to receive EUR   4,500 for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, except Mr Şakar who will receive EUR 2,700. The applicants will also receive an aggregate sum of EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)       ***   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 Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site.   [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.