CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 1 avril 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 } .s4FCB919E { width:50.09pt; display:inline-block } .s8C054120 { width:136.13pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8BB26795 { width:142.79pt; 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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   164 1.4.2004   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 three Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]     Coorbanally v. France (application no. 67114/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Mahamood Coorbanally, is a Mauritian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Coudekerque Branche (Nord).   In 1999 he was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment and fined EUR 1,500 for driving a vehicle while disqualified and exceeding a speed limit. An appeal by the applicant on points of law was dismissed on 20 September 2000.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant submitted that the proceedings before the Court of Cassation had not been fair. He complained that he had not been summoned to the hearing and had not received a copy of the reporting judge’s report or the submissions of the advocate-general.   The European Court of Human Rights reiterated that failure to communicate the reporting judge’s report to the applicant before the hearing, although it had been communicated to the advocate-general and the fact that it had been impossible for the applicant to reply to the latter’s submissions were incompatible with the requirements of a fair trial. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of 6 § 1 and that in the light of that finding it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint that the applicant had not been summoned to the hearing.   The Court considered that the finding of a violation was sufficient to make good the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Quesne v. France (no. 65110/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Michel Quesne, is a French national who was born in 1941.   He is at present imprisoned in Rennes Prison where he is serving a 16-year sentence imposed on him in 1999 for rape of a child under 15 by a blood-relative in the ascending line and for a number of counts of rape by a blood-relative in the ascending line. An appeal by the applicant on points of law was dismissed on 23 February 2000.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial), the applicant submitted that the proceedings before the Court of Cassation had not been fair. He complained that he had not received a copy of the reporting judge’s report or the draft judgment and that the advocate-general had been present at the deliberations.   Referring to its case-law, the Court observed that failure to communicate the reporting judge’s report to the applicant or his counsel before the hearing although it had been supplied to the advocate-general created an imbalance which was incompatible with the requirements of a fair trial. It considered that providing a copy of the draft judgment to the advocate-general alone, and not to the applicant or his lawyer, raised a fortiori an identical problem.   As regards the advocate-general’s participation in the deliberations of the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation, the Court considered that his mere presence was incompatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of 6 § 1. It considered that the finding of a violation was sufficient to make good the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Takak v. Turkey (no. 30452/96)   Violation of   Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Yüksel Takak, is a Turkish national, born in 1966 and living in Izmir, Turkey.   On 24 November 1994 she was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment by Izmir State Security Court for aiding and abetting the PKK (the Kurdish Workers’ Party ), proscribed as a terrorist organisation under Turkish law. She was further debarred from public service for three years.   The applicant complained, in particular, that she was denied a fair hearing, given the presence of a military judge on the bench of the state security court which tried her. She further claimed that her conviction had been based on statements which she had withdrawn and that she was not allowed to cross-examine a witness. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to fair trial) of the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the lack of independence and impartiality of the state security court and that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s other complaints under Article 6 § 1. The Court further held, unanimously, that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage and awarded the applicant EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses. (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.