CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 23 octobre 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF9C0A319 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s6A184BC2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS [Note1]     525   23.10.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   14 Chamber judgments concerning Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 14   Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1] (All 14 are available only in French.) [Note2]   In each of these cases, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   As regards Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the European Court of Human Rights found in the Çakar case that the damage sustained by the applicant and his widow could not be adequately repaired solely by the finding of a violation. It consequently awarded Mr Çakar’s widow 3,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses.   In the other 13 cases, the Court held that the findings of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the alleged non-pecuniary damage. It said that in cases in which the applicant had been convicted by a court that was not independent and impartial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, the most appropriate form of redress would in principle be for them to be retried by an independent and impartial court at an early date.   The Court made the following awards for costs and expenses: in the Özyol, Eren and Dalgiç cases, EUR 2,000 to each of the applicants; in the Mesut Erdoğan case, EUR 1,290; in the Akkaş case EUR 2,500; in the Ergül and Engin and Süvarioğulları and Others cases, EUR   2,000, less EUR 630 received from the Council of Europe by way of legal aid, to be held by the applicants jointly; In the Çavuş and Bulut and Tutmaz and Others cases, EUR   1,500, less EUR 630 received by way of legal aid, to be held by the applicants jointly; and, lastly, in the Peker case, EUR 2,000, less EUR 660 received in legal aid.   1. Principal facts and complaints   In these 14 cases, the applicants were convicted by the state security courts of being members of or of having aided and abetted illegal armed organisations. They were given prison sentences.   Relying on Article 6 § 1, they complained that they had not been tried by an independent and impartial court, as a military judge had sat in the trial court. Some of the applicants also complained of procedural unfairness and other violations of Article 6 of the Convention.   Some of them also alleged a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Lastly, in the Çakar v. Turkey case, the applicant complained of a breach of his right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention.     Akkaş v. Turkey (no. 52665/99) – The applicant, Çağlar Akkaş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977. At the time the application was lodged, he was being held in Bursa Prison. He had been sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment for being a member of an illegal armed organisation, the DHKP-C (Revolutionary Party for the Liberation of the People – Front), and for the manufacture and possession of explosives.   Çakar v. Turkey (no. 42741/98) – Mehmet Çakar is a Turkish national who was born in 1965. He was sentenced to 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for being a member of an illegal armed organisation, the TKP/ML-PARTIZAN (Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist Leninist-Partisan). On 18 September 1998, while serving his sentence, the applicant was killed by fellow prisoners.   Çavuş and Bulut v. Turkey (nos. 41580/98 and 42439/98) – The applicants, Yaşar Çavus and Hasan Bulut, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1975 in 1970. When they lodged their applications, they were being held in Bergama Prison. They received prison sentences of 12   years and 6 months for being members of an armed gang, the TKP/ML-TIKKO (the Marxist Leninist Communist Party of Turkey – the Turkish Workers and Farmers Freedom Fighters).   Dalgıç v. Turkey (no. 51416/99) – The applicant, Dilek Dalgıç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974. She was in Burdur Prison when she lodged her application to the Court. She was sentenced to 3 years and 9 months’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting an armed gang.   Eren v. Turkey (no. 46106/99) –The applicant, Seyfettin Eren, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974. In 1997 he was arrested and taken into custody in Tokat. He was sentenced to 4   years and 6 months’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation, the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan).   Ergül and Engin v. Turkey (no. 52744/99) – The applicants, Mahmut Ergül and Fahri Ergin, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1977. When they lodged their application to the Court they were being held respectively in Ümraniye Prison (Istanbul) and Bursa Prison. They had been arrested on suspicion of aiding and abetting the PKK, manufacturing and possessing explosives and causing criminal damage to public property. They were sentenced to 3 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.   Gençel v. Turkey (no. 53431/99) – The applicant, Binali Gençel, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969. He was being held in Nazilli Prison, Aydın, when he lodged his application with the Court. He had been sentenced to 18 years and 9 months’ imprisonment for being a member of an illegal organisation.     Hayrettin Barbaros Yılmaz v. Turkey (no. 50743/99) – The applicant, Hayrettin Barbaros Yılmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969. He was in Ankara Prison when he lodged his application with the Court, serving a 12 years and 6 months’ prison sentence for belonging to an illegal organisation, the TDP (the Party of the Turkish Revolution).   Mesut Erdoğan v. Turkey (no. 53895/00) – The applicant, Mesut Erdoğan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Ankara. He was sentenced in 19 years and 4   months’ imprisonment for being a member of an illegal organisation, the DHKP-C (Revolutionary Party for the Liberation of the People – Front) and for planting explosive devices.   Özyol v. Turkey (no. 48617/99) – The applicant, Halil Özyol, is a Turkish national who was born in 1962 and lives in İzmir. He was found guilty of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, the DHKP-C (Revolutionary Party for the Liberation of the People – Front), and sentenced to 3 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.   Peker v. Turkey (no. 53014/99) – The applicant, Nurettin Peker, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966. He is currently being held in Bolu Prison. He was found guilty of being a member of an illegal organisation, the THKP-C (Party for the Liberation of the people of Turkey – Front) and sentenced to 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.   Şimşek v. Turkey (no. 50118/99) – The applicant, Emrullah Şimşek, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975. He was being held in Ankara Prison when his application to the Court was lodged. He had been found guilty of being a member of an armed gang and sentenced to 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.   Süvarioğulları and Others v. Turkey (no. 50119/99) – The applicants, Umut Fırat Süvarioğulları, Ali Haydar Boztepe and Bülent Elden, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1974, 1977 and 1975 respectively. Mr Süvarioğulları and Mr Boztepe were found guilty of separatism and undermining State security. Mr Elden was found guilty of being a member of an armed gang. Mr   Süvarioğulları was sentenced to death, but his sentence was commuted to one of life imprisonment for good behaviour at the trial. Mr Boztepe was also sentenced to death, which was commuted to 16 years and 8 months’ imprisonment on the grounds that he was still a minor when the offences were committed. Mr Elden was sentenced to 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.   Tutmaz and Others v. Turkey (no. 51053/99) – The applicants, Suphi Tutmaz, Abdullah Turan and Süleyman Aksoy, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1974, 1960 and 1953 respectively. They were being held in Nazilli Prison when their applications to the Court were lodged. Mr Turan and Mr Aksoy were found guilty of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, the PKK, and sentenced to 3 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. Mr Tutmaz was sentenced to 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for belonging to an illegal organisation.   2. Decision of the Court   The Court reiterated that a civilian who was required to answer criminal charges before a state security court that included a military judge on its bench had a legitimate reason to fear that the court would not be independent and impartial. It accordingly unanimously found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in each of these 14 cases.   The Court also reiterated once it had been established that a court was not independent and impartiality that court could not, in any circumstances, guarantee a fair trial to the persons subject to its jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court considered that it was unnecessary to examine the other complaints of procedural unfairness that had been raised by some of the applicants.   As regards the complaint in the Çakar v. Turkey case of a violation of Article 10, the Court noted that it had not been raised by the applicant before the domestic courts and declared it inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.     ***   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. [Note1]   Press release for grouped judgments . To be saved in PowerDocs as follows: (1) Document Name: [case name +] [day +] month[s] + year + language [+ case names] (e.g. January 2003E (Bloggs, Durand + Dupont) or 12-14 February 2003E (Finland + France) or Reina 31012003E ), (2)   Document type: PR, (3) Group: PRESS, (4) Subject: JCH or JGC . [Note2]   If you keep this sentence, do not forget to remove the corresponding sentence for each individual case.