Last Updated on May 29, 2019 by LawEuro
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF ÇELİK v. TURKEY
(Application no. 25834/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 September 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Çelik v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
LediBianku, President,
NebojšaVučinić,
Jon FridrikKjølbro, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 July 2018,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 25834/09) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr İzzetÇelik (“the applicant”), on 27 April 2009.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr S. Gözkıran and Mr B. Benek lawyers practising in Şanlıurfa. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
3. On 25 August 2014 the complaints concerning Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissiblepursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Şanlıurfa.
5. On 17 July 2008 the applicant sent a letter to the Halfeti (Şanlıurfa) public prosecutor’s office which contained the following passage:
“If using the word of “sayın” (esteemed) is an offense, then I also say “Sayın Abdullah Öcalan”, I commit this offense and denounce myself.”
6. On 9 October 2008, the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Halfeti Magistrates’ Court in Criminal Matters against the applicant. He was charged with praising an offence and offender, prescribed by Article 215 of the Criminal Code (Law no. 5237), on account of his statements in the above mentioned letter.
7. On 29 December 2008, in a final judgment, the Halfeti Magistrates’ Court in Criminal Matters found the applicant guilty of praising the imprisoned leader of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation, on account of his statements in the aforementioned letter and accordingly sentenced him to two months and fifteen days’ imprisonment. In accordance with Article 50 of the Criminal Code, this prison sentence was commuted to a fine of 1,500 Turkish Liras (TRY).
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
8. A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Yalçınkaya and Others v. Turkey (nos. 25764/09 and 18 others, §§ 12‑13, 1 October 2013) and Bayar and Gürbüz v. Turkey(no. 37569/06, §§ 13‑14, 27 November 2012).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION
9. The applicant complained that his conviction for using the honorific “Sayın” (esteemed) when referring to the imprisoned leader of the PKK in his letter, had constituted an unjustified interference with his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention.
10. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
11. The applicant complained that his conviction, which was based on Article 215 of the Criminal Code, had infringed his rights under the Convention.
12. The Court notes at the outset that the Government did not submit any observations on the merits, stating that they were aware of the Court’s relevant case‑law.
13. The Court has already examined a similar complaint in the case of Yalçınkaya and Others v. Turkey (nos. 25764/09 and 18 others, §§ 26‑38, 1 October 2013) and found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. It has also examined the present case and finds no particular circumstances which would require it to depart from its findings in the above-mentioned judgment.
14. In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
15. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right of access to a court, namely his right to file an appeal against his conviction, had been breached on the ground that the amount of the fine that had been imposed on him had not reached the minimum value required for lodging an appeal.
16. The Government, stating that they were aware of the Court’s case‑law, did not submit any observations on the merits
17. The Court notes that it has already examined similar issues in the past (see Bayar and Gürbüz v. Turkey, no. 37569/06, §§ 40‑49, 27 November 2012, and Yalçınkaya and Others, cited above, §§ 44-45), and found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. There is no reason to depart from those findings.
18. Accordingly, the Court concludes that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
A. Damage
19. The applicant claimed 1,263euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary andEUR 20,000in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
20. The Government contested these claims.
21. As regards pecuniary damage, taking into account the imposed fine, the Court awards the applicant EUR 275 under this head. As regards non-pecuniary damage,it accepts that the applicant suffered non-pecuniary damage which is not sufficiently compensated for by the finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court awards the applicant EUR 2,500 under this head (see Yalçınkaya and Others, cited above, § 53).
B. Costs and expenses
22. The applicant also claimed EUR 400 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
23. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. The Court observes that the applicant failed to quantify his costs and expenses and to submit any document in support of his claims. The Court therefore makes no award under this head.
C. Default interest
24. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declaresthe application admissible;
2. Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
3. Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months the following amount, to be converted into the currency of the respondent Stateat the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 275 (two hundred and seventy five euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 2,500 (two thousand and five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable,in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
5. Dismissesthe remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 September 2018, pursuant to Rule77§§2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan Bakırcı Ledi Bianku
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply