CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 9 mars 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s4A9019A8 { width:63.44pt; display:inline-block } .s172596D7 { width:126.82pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .s146D2459 { width:312.91pt; display:inline-block } .s854EF1B6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:13.5pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .sF5D3D042 { width:92.15pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB14B09F8 { width:113.46pt; display:inline-block } .s331C3E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s48A8B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC4418D41 { width:207.48pt; display:inline-block } .sF631E1D1 { width:166.8pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s7E99EE1A { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s6F57788 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   114 9.3.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Hungary, Finland, Slovakia and Turkey.   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]     Csanádi v. Hungary (application no. 55220/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Lajos Csanádi, is an Hungarian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Szabadbattyán (Hungary).   Following a collision with a bus, he was accused of having caused a traffic accident through negligence. He complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings lodged against him, which have lasted eight years and nine months and are still pending.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Pitkänen v. Finland (no. 30508/96)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicants, Eila and Markku Pitkänen, both Finnish nationals, are a married couple born respectively in 1957 and 1955. They live in Helsinki.   They complained of the excessive length of the court proceedings, which exceeded seven years, regarding construction on their land as well as on a neighbouring property. They also complained about the unfairness of one set of proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 regarding the length of the proceedings and found no violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the issue of fairness. Each applicant was awarded 3,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and jointly EUR   4,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)         No violation of Article 6 § 1   No violation of Article 13 No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kačmár v. Slovakia (no. 40290/98) The applicant, Ondrej Kačmár, is a Slovakian national, born in 1944 and living in Presov (Slovakia).   On 16 July 1991 Košice Regional Arbitration Court obliged the State-owned company which owned two business premises leased by the applicant to conclude a purchase contract with him. A contract was agreed and the applicant paid for the property. Subsequently the company went into liquidation and its contract with the applicant was declared null and void due to formal shortcomings in it. Ownership of the property was transferred to another person who owned different premises in the same house.   The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention that his request to have the arbitration court’s decision of 16 July 1991 enforced was not granted and that he could not defend his rights in the proceedings in which the property had been transferred to another person. He also alleged that he was prevented from acquiring ownership of property to which he was entitled, in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held, unanimously, that it could not rule on the merits of the complaints which had been made before it more than six months after the final relevant decision by the Slovakian national courts.   Noting the view of the Slovakian courts that the July 1991 decision could not be enforced in the way claimed by the applicant, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court or to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1.   Concerning Article 13, the Court found that the applicant did have an effective remedy, as he was able to challenge on appeal the decisions concerning his enforcement request, albeit unsuccessfully. The Court held, therefore, that there had been no violation of Article 13.   Concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court observed that the July 1991 decision did not, as such, give the applicant title to the property in question. It rather imposed a contractual obligation on the company to conclude a purchase contract with the applicant concerning that property and gave the applicant the right to have such a contract concluded.   Among other things, the applicant was partly responsible for the fact that the original contract had been declared void, as various statutory requirements had not been respected. The contract was also open to challenge because it included other property in addition to the business premises leased by the applicant. The Court held, unanimously, therefore, that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 10 Abdullah Aydın v. Turkey (no. 42435/98)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Abdullah Aydın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1944 and lives in Ankara.   On 1 September 1996, at a rally to mark World Peace Day, he gave a speech as a representative of the Ankara Democracy Platform ( Ankara Demokrasi Platformu ). He was prosecuted for incitement to hatred and hostility based on social, ethnic and regional differences. On 21 October 1997 the Ankara National Security Court found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment and a fine. It held that he had drawn a distinction between the Turkish people and the Kurdish people and had not referred to the damage caused in the state of emergency region by the PKK ( Workers’ Party of Kurdistan ), proscribed as a terrorist organisation under Turkish law. The Court of Cassation upheld his conviction.   The applicant submitted that his conviction had interfered with his right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. He further maintained that the National Security Court that convicted him had not been an independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) because its members had included a military judge. He also complained under Article 6   § 3 (b) (right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of one’s defence) that the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation had not been communicated to him.   The Court noted that the applicant’s conviction had interfered with his right to freedom of expression and that the interference had been prescribed by law and had pursued legitimate aims, namely the prevention of disorder and crime and the preservation of national security and territorial integrity. As to whether the interference had been necessary in a democratic society, the Court took into account the content of the impugned speech, the language used and the context in which it had been given.   The Court noted that the speech in issue had been political, in terms of both its content and the language used. In it the applicant had criticised the Government’s actions and policy and accused it of breaching human rights, but alongside those criticisms there had been clear and repeated calls for peace, equality and freedom.   The Court did not underestimate the difficulties associated with preventing terrorism but observed that the applicant had been speaking in his capacity as a representative of a democratic platform, a player on the Turkish political scene, and had not been encouraging violence, armed resistance or insurrection.   The Court also noted that the applicant had been convicted not so much for his comments as for not referring to or denouncing the PKK’s activities in south-east Turkey, and regarded that as insufficient justification for the interference. Lastly,   the Court took note of the nature and severity of the penalties imposed. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that the applicant’s conviction had not been “necessary in a democratic society” and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10.   As to the complaints concerning the fairness of the proceedings, the Court reiterated that that civilians standing trial for offences under the Criminal Code had legitimate reason to fear that a national security court which included a military judge among its members might not be independent and impartial. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It further reiterated that a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established could not under any circumstances guarantee a fair trial to those subject to its jurisdiction. It therefore held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 6 § 3 (b).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Boztaş et autres v. Turkey (no. 40299/98)   Friendly settlement The applicants, Rıza, Hatiye and Nuriye Boztaş, are Turkish nationals of Kurdish origin, who lived in the village of Karşılar (south-east Turkey) at the material time.   In the night of 30 July 1997 the security forces directed mortar fire towards the village, destroying several houses including that of the applicants. The applicants, together with several other villagers, were injured in the attack. A subsequent inquiry into the events resulted in a decision that there was no case to answer.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained of the serious injuries inflicted on them and the loss of their possessions. They also complained that the domestic remedies in respect of their complaints were ineffective. In addition, they submitted that they had been discriminated against in breach of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicants are to receive EUR 61,000   for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage and EUR 7,500   for costs and expenses. The Turkish Government have also made the following declaration: “The Government of the Republic of Turkey regret the occurrence of the incidents which led to application no.   40299/98 being lodged, in particular the use of excessive military force causing very serious injuries to the applicants Mr Rıza Boztaş, Ms Hatiye Boztaş and Ms Nuriye Boztaş, and the destruction of the family’s property. The Government also regret the failure to show the diligence required by such circumstances in carrying out an effective judicial investigation of the case within a reasonable time while ensuring respect for the applicants’ related rights. “It is accepted that such acts and omissions constitute a violation of, inter alia , Articles 2 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The Government therefore undertake to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures, in particular to ensure that the right to life and the resulting obligation to conduct an investigation is respected in similar circumstances in the future... 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 the context of human-rights protection. To this end, necessary cooperation in this process will continue to take place.”   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Çalişkan v. Turkey (no. 32861/96)   Struck out The applicant, Muhterem Çalişkan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Istanbul.   On 10 December 1994, following a routine check, he was taken to the gendarmerie station to establish his identity. He was released several hours later. A medical examination carried out the following day revealed that the applicant was suffering from pain in the rib area. Following a further examination, he was declared unfit for work for seven days. The applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the gendarmerie captain, accusing him of punching him repeatedly on the chest and threatening him. It was decided that there was no case to answer in respect of the complaint.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention, the applicant complained of the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected at the gendarmerie station.   On 1 December 2003 the applicant wrote to the Court indicating his intention to withdraw his application. The Court was satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols did not require the examination of the application to be continued   and decided unanimously to strike the case out, pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (a). (The judgment is available only in French.)   Gerger v. Turkey (no. 42436/98)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Haluk Bahri Gerger, a Turkish national born in 1948 and living in Ankara, is a journalist.   He published an article entitled “State of Emergency and Provide Comfort Forces” (“OHAL ve Çekiç Güç ”) in the 30   June 1995 issue of Evrensel , a daily Turkish newspaper.   On 3 July 1995 the applicant and Evrensel ’s editor-in-chief were charged with incitement to hatred and hostility by making distinctions on the basis of race and region under Article 312 §§ 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code.   On 23 September 1995 the applicant was released from prison after having served his sentence of one year and eight months’ imprisonment, stemming from an earlier conviction for incitement to hatred. In November, his prison sentence was commuted to a fine in accordance with Law   no. 4126. The sentence was subsequently suspended.     On 29 December 1997 Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 312 §§ 2 and 3. It ruled that the article in Evrensel , taken as a whole, amounted to incitement to hatred and hostility on the basis of distinctions between races and regions. The court sentenced the applicant, under Article 312 §§ 2 and 3, to one year and eight months’ imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 Turkish liras. However, the applicant successfully requested that the time he had spent in prison in relation to his earlier conviction be deducted from the new prison sentence. He was, therefore, not imprisoned.   The applicant complained that his conviction and subsequent sentence in his absence violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR   7,000 is to be paid to the applicant for any non-pecuniary or pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses.   The Turkish Government has also made the following declaration: “The Court’s rulings against Turkey in cases involving prosecution under former Article 312 of the Penal Code clearly showed that Turkish law and practice needed to be brought into line with the Convention’s requirements under Article 10 of the Convention. This is also reflected in the interference underlying the facts of the present case. To that end, amendments were made by the Government to Article 312 by Law no. 4744. The Government undertake to ensure that the amended Article 312 will be applied in accordance with the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention as interpreted in the Court’s case-law. “The Government will continue to implement all necessary reform of domestic law and practice in this area, including by means of the organisation of training programmes for prosecutors and judges on the relevant Convention standards. “The Government refer also to the individual measures set out in the Interim Resolution adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 23   July 2001 (ResDH(2001)106, which they will apply to the circumstances of cases such as the instant one.”   (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   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. [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.