Last Updated on October 3, 2020 by LawEuro
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF FATİH TAŞ v. TURKEY (No. 3)
(Application no. 45281/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24 April 2018
FINAL
10/09/2018
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Fatih Taş v. Turkey (no. 3),
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Robert Spano, President,
Paul Lemmens,
Ledi Bianku,
Işıl Karakaş,
Valeriu Griţco,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, DeputySection Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 April 2018,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 45281/08) 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 Fatih Taş (“the applicant”), on 9 September 2008.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr İ. Akmeşe and Ms Y. Polat, lawyers practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
3. The applicant alleged under Article 10 of the Convention that the seizure of Patika – Gerilla Anıları IV (“The Path –Guerrilla Memoirs IV”), a book published by his publishing company, as well as the criminal proceedings brought against him on account of the content of the book, had constituted a breach of his right to freedom of expression. He also complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings in question had not been concluded within a reasonable time, and that there had been no domestic remedies available under Turkish law for the excessive length of the criminal proceedings.
4. On 9 January 2012 the application was communicated to the Government.
5. On 22 June 2017, under Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court,the President of the Section asked the partiesto submit a copy of the book. On 8 August 2017 the applicant submitted a copy of the book.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
6. The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Istanbul.At the time of the events giving rise to the present application, he was the owner and editor-in-chief of a publishing house, Aram Basım ve Yayıncılık.
7. In August 2003 the applicant’s company published a book entitled Patika – Gerilla Anıları IV (“The Path –Guerrilla Memoirs IV”, hereinafter “the book”). The editor of the book was a certain B.K. The 326-page book consisted of the memoirs of seventeen members of the PKK[1]. The authors of the memoirs described their lives in the PKK camps, in rural areas in both Turkey and Iraq, armed clashes with the Turkish security forces, and their ideology and opinions regarding the situation in Turkey.
8. In September 2003 the public prosecutor attached to the Istanbul State Security Court launched an investigation into the book. On 30 September 2003 he asked that court to order the seizure of copies of the book on the grounds that certain passages on pages 7, 19, 23, 81, 106‑114, 139, 147, 152, 157-177, 203, 273, 277, 317, 321 contained propaganda in favour of the PKK.
9. On the same day a single judge at the Istanbul State Security Court made an interim order for the seizure of copies of the book. The judge considered that the passages referred to by the public prosecutor incited the use of methods of violence and terror, and thus constituted propaganda in favour of the PKK. On 10 October 2003 an application by the applicant to set aside the order of 30 September 2003 was rejected.
10. On 14 October 2003 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court, charging the applicant with disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). The public prosecutor cited a number of passages from pages 7, 19, 23, 81, 106-114, 139, 147, 152, 157-177, 203, 273, 277, 317, 321, and claimed that in those passages members of the PKK were depicted as heroes, and their acts and activities were praised.
11. On 26 March 2004 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment and a fine. In its judgment, the court referred to a number of passages on pages 19, 21, 81, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, 113, 114, 134, 135, 139, 147, 163, 189, 197, 203, 273, 274, 277, 317 and 321, and considered that those passages constituted propaganda in favour of the PKK.
12. On 7 October 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the first-instance judgment holding that the first-instance court should consider the provisions of the new Press Act (Law no. 5187) which had entered into force on 26 June 2004. It then remitted the case file to the Istanbul Assize Court, since, in the meantime, state security courts had been abolished.
13. On 22 July 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court held that it did not have jurisdiction over the case and sent the file to the Beyoğlu Criminal Court.
14. On 5 July 2006 the Beyoğlu Criminal Court also ruled that it lacked jurisdiction.
15. On 19 October 2006 the Court of Cassation decided that the Istanbul Assize Court had jurisdiction over the case and sent the case file to that court.
16. On 29 June 2007 the Istanbul Assize Court once again convicted the applicant as charged. The court sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment and a fine of 416 Turkish liras (TRY). In its judgment, the court held:
“On the basis of the examination of the book in its entirety, it has been observed that the book depicts the activities of members of the PKK-KADEK, the terrorist organisation,and their so-called impressions of the clashes between them and members of the security forces. The book consists of different chapters written by different people. The preface to the book contains the following:
‘Our president Apo[2] states that theoutcome of the war is very valuable… While the history written and life created by bullets drip off pens, guerrillas go beyond the faraway corners of our land with their bags on the backs and their weapons in their hands… We smile with a picture of war and, with a song, we add new [people] to those who have left us…’
On page 160, it is stated:
‘We had to change the Anatolian People’s Army for Emancipation in accordance with the needs of the Anatolian people. They did not know us as members of the PKK, and we were not established there. If we went there as the PKK, we could not win their hearts. Therefore, when we first arrived in the Black Sea region, we used the name Anatolian People’s Army for Emancipation. Some people told us that they had never heard of our organisation, and they thought that we were a very good one. Some had difficulties, as they suspected us to be the PKK. We could not explicitly say that we were PKK members. Our president [Abdullah Öcalan] stated that he knew the people of the Black Sea, and advised us to raise consciousness through our attitudes and actions first, and then to tell them that we were PKK members, after they trusted us…’
On pages 106 and 107, it is stated:
‘…I shared my joy with them by saying “Friends, four vehicles belonging to the enemy were destroyed. They were burned.” That day I forgot about my sleeplessness. I did not think about my tiredness, hunger or thirst as much as I had done before. I had only one wish: engaging in a clash and getting in a good shot with my weapon, which I had not used, although I had had it with me for long time.’
‘…[He asked] “My friend, is this your first [armed] clash?” I said “yes.”“[Armed] clashes are nice, aren’t they?”“Yes, they are.”‘”
17. The Istanbul Assize Court considered that the above-mentioned passages and certain other passages on pages 19, 21, 81, 105, 108, 110, 113, 114, 134, 135, 139, 147, 163, 189, 197, 203, 273, 274, 277, 317 and 321 praised the armed clashes between PKK militants and the security forces, and those militants’ acts. As a result, the court found that the book did not have any literary value. According to the assize court, the publisher had not aimed to publish a book of memoirs, but had had the intention of disseminating propaganda inciting the terrorist organisation and its militants to violence or other methods of terrorism.
18. On 2 February 2010 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment. The Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 29 June 2007 on the ground that a pre-payment notice had not been served on the applicant in accordance with section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 and Article 75 of the Criminal Code.
19. On 8 April 2011 the Istanbul Assize Court decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against the applicant, since the prosecution was time‑barred.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
20. Between 7 August 2003 and 18 July 2006, section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 read as follows:
“Any person who assists members of the above-mentioned organisations [terrorist organisations] or who disseminates propaganda inciting others to violence or other methods of terrorism shall be liable to [serve] a term of imprisonment of one to five years and [receive] a judicial fine of five million liras to one billion liras …”
The first sentence of section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 was amended as follows by Law no. 5532, which entered into force on 18 July 2006:
“Any person who disseminates propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation shall be liable to [serve] a term of imprisonment of one to five years …”
The first sentence of section 7(2) of Law no. 3713, amended on 30 April 2013 by Law no. 6459, currently reads as follows:
“Any person who disseminates propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation by justifying, praising or encouraging the use of methods constituting coercion, violence or threats shall be liable to [serve] a term of imprisonment of one to five years …”
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION
21. The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings brought against him pursuant to section 7(2) of Law no. 3713,and his conviction under that section,had constituted a violation of his right to freedom of expression. He further complained under the same Article about the seizure of copies of the book on 30 September 2003. Article 10 of the Convention reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
22. The Government contested that claim.
A. Admissibility
1. Seizure of copies of the book on 30 September 2003
23. The Court observes that on 30 September 2003 an interim order for the seizure of copies of the book was made, and that on 10 October 2003 the applicant’s application to set aside the order of 30 September 2003 was rejected. The present application, on the other hand, was lodged on 9 September 2008. Accordingly, this part of the application has been lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
2. Criminal proceedings brought against the applicant
24. The Government claimed that the applicant did not have victim status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention,as he had not been convicted at the end of the proceedings.
25. The Court considers that the Government’s objection regarding theapplicant’s lack of “victim status” is closely linked to the merits of his complaints under this head. It therefore joins this issue to the merits. The Court further notes that this part of the application 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.
B. Merits
1. The parties’ submissions
26. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim, as the proceedings against him had become time-barred. They therefore argued that there had been no interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression. Alternatively, they submitted that the applicant had been prosecuted pursuant to section 7(2) of Law no. 3713, and thus the interference, if any,had been prescribed by law. They further submitted that the domestic authorities had pursued the legitimate aims of protecting public order and national security. The Government lastly submitted that the interference had been necessary in a democratic society, given that the content of the book in question had promoted hatred, hostility, the use of arms, militancy and revenge.
27. The applicant submitted that his trial, which hadlasted for more than seven years and which had resulted in his being convicted under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713,had amounted to an interference with his right guaranteed under Article 10 of the Convention. He also claimed that the interference in question had not been necessary in a democratic society. In that respect, he submitted that the book in question was like an historical novel and that, read in its entirety, it did not incite violence.
2. The Court’s assessment
a. Whether there was an interference
28. The Court notes at the outset that it has already examined and rejected a similar objection by the Government to the admissibility in the case of Dilipak v. Turkey (no. 29680/05, §§ 44-51, 15 September 2015), the circumstances of which were similar to the present case. The Court finds no reason which would require it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. In particular,criminal charges were pending against the applicant for a considerable length of time, and he could not be sure that he would not face further legal consequences if he, as a publisher, published other books on similar matters, either during those criminal proceedings or at any future stage. The Court considers that the sevenandahalf years of criminal proceedings conducted against the applicant, in view of the chilling effect which those proceedings may well have caused, cannot be viewed as solely comprising purely hypothetical risks to the applicant, and considers that they constituted genuine and effective restrictions per se. The declaration that the proceedings had become time-barred merely put an end to the above-mentioned risks, but did not alter the fact that those risks had put the applicant under pressure for a substantial period of time (ibid. §§ 49 and 50; see also Semir Güzel v. Turkey, no. 29483/09, §§ 26-31, 13 September 2016). Accordingly, the Court rejects the Government’s objection and finds that the criminal proceedings in question constituted an “interference” with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression as secured by Article 10 of the Convention.
b. Whether the interference was justified
29. The Court notes that it is not disputed between the parties that the interference was prescribed by law. The dispute in the present case concerns the questions whether the interference pursued a legitimate aim and whether it was “necessary in a democratic society” (Agit Demir v. Turkey, no. 36475/10, § 73, 27 February 2018[3]). The Court is prepared to accept that, in the instant case, the national authorities may be considered to have pursued the legitimate aims of protecting national security and preventing disorder and crime (see Faruk Temel v. Turkey, no. 16853/05, § 52, 1 February 2011).
30. As regards the necessity of the interference in a democratic society, the Court reiterates the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10 (see, for example, Sürek v. Turkey(no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, §§ 58-59, ECHR 1999‑IV; Şener v. Turkey, no. 26680/95, §§ 39-43, 18 July 2000; and Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 48, ECHR 2016). The Court considers that the principles contained in the above‑mentioned judgmentspertaining to the media also apply to the publication of books in general or written texts other than the periodical press (see Association Ekin v. France, no 39288/98, §§ 56-57, ECHR 2001‑VIII, and Çamyar and Berktaş v. Turkey, no. 41959/02, § 36, 15 February 2011). It will examine the present case in the light of the above principles.
31. The Court observes that the book consists of seventeen chapters written by seventeen members of the PKK who had been involved in that organisation’s armed activities. In the chapters, the authors convey the details of their daily lives in camps and rural areas in different regions of Turkey andIraq, their experiences with local people, their interactions with other members of the PKK, as well as their political opinions and emotions. In the Court’s view, given that serious disturbances haveoccurred between the security forces and members of the PKK since approximately 1984, involving a very heavy loss of life and the imposition of emergency rule in much of the south-east of Turkey for many years, it may be concluded that the book may be considered to contain issues of public concern. Hence, in the Court’s view, publication of a book describing the lives of PKK members per se does not run counter to the values of a democratic society.
32. In that connection, the Court observes that the applicant was not charged with disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK because he had published the book in question, but because the judicial authorities considered that certain passages in the book constituted propaganda in favour of that organisation. As a matter of fact,a number of passages contained in the book were citedin both the bill of indictment and the first-instance courts’ judgments of 26 March 2004 and 29 June 2007, and the applicant was prosecuted on the basis of the content of those passages. TheCourt must have particular regard to the impugned passages and the context in which they were published. With regard to the context, it will also take into account the background to the case submitted to it, described in paragraph 31 above (see, among many others, Sürek (no. 1), cited above, § 62; Başkaya and Okçuoğlu v. Turkey [GC], nos. 23536/94 and 24408/94, § 63, ECHR 1999‑IV; Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 89, ECHR 2004‑XI; andDemirel and Ateş v. Turkey (no. 3), no. 11976/03, § 21, 9 December 2008).
33. The Court notes that the common factor in most of the passages cited and referred to by the public prosecutor, the Istanbul State Security Court and the Istanbul Assize Court is the authors’reference in those passages to either Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK, being the “President”, or the members of the security forces being “enemies”. In the Court’s view, those passages cannot be construed as encouraging violence, armed resistance or an uprising.
34. However, the Court observes that three passages in the book, namely the preface and the passages on pages 106 and 107 cited in the judgment of 29 June 2007 (see paragraph 16 above),clearly glorify the use of armed force and praise deadly violence. In particular, in the preface, the results of the war are presented as “valuable” and the deaths of members of the PKK are romanticised. On page 106, the destruction of the security forces’ vehicles was announced as very good news, and the author expresses his desire to “get in a good shot”. Lastly, on page 107, an armed clash between the PKK and the security forces was described as an enjoyable event. Hence, the Court finds that the domestic authorities’ assessment that the passages in question constituted incitement to violence and to other methods of terrorism was reasonable.Indeed, the message which was communicated to the reader in those parts is that recourse to violence is necessary, satisfactory, and even pleasant (see, mutatis mutandis,Sürek (no. 1), cited above, § 62).
35. The Court notes that the passages on pages 106 and 107 were not written by the applicant. The author of the preface, on the other hand, is not known, as there is no signature. However, given that the book was edited by B.K., it is possible to assume that the preface was written by him. While it is true that there is nothing in the case file showing that the applicant personally associated himself with the views contained in the preface and on pages 106 and 107, he nevertheless provided the writers with an outlet for stirring up violence (see Sürek v. Turkey(no. 3) [GC], no. 24735/94, § 41, 8 July 1999). He was the owner and editor-in-chief, and as such had the power to shape the editorial direction of the book. For that reason, he was vicariously subject to the “duties and responsibilities” which authorstake on when they disseminate their writings to the public, and which assume an even greater importance in situations of conflict and tension (see Sürek (no. 1), cited above, § 63; Sürek (no. 3), cited above, § 41; Halis Doğan v. Turkey (no. 3), no. 4119/02, § 36, 10 October 2006; andSaygılı and Falakaoğluv. Turkey (no. 2), no. 38991/02, § 29, 17 February 2009).
36. Lastly, the Court notes that, although not decisive, the criminal proceedings against the applicant were terminated as time‑barred, and that there was no final conviction. Nor was he detained on remand or made to serve any prison sentence in the context of the proceedings in question.
37. Against this background, the Court finds that the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant as the owner and editor-in-chief of Aram Basım ve Yayıncılık for publishing the bookcould reasonably be regarded as answering a “pressing social need”, being proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued and thus being necessary in a democratic society.
There has accordingly been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION
38. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides:
“In the determination of … any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal …”
39. The Government contested that claim.
A. Admissibility
40. The Court observes at the outset that a new domestic remedy has been established in Turkey since the application of the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012). The Court observes that it declared a new application inadmissible in its decision in the case of Turgut and Others v. Turkey (no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013), on the grounds that the applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies, that is to say the new remedy established under Law no. 6384. In doing so, the Court considered in particular that this new remedy was, a priori, accessible and capable of offering a reasonable prospect of redress for complaints concerning the length of proceedings.
41. The Court further points out that, in its judgment in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan (cited above, § 77), it stressed that it could nevertheless pursue the examination of such applications under the normal procedure in cases which had already been communicated to the Government prior to the entry into force of the new remedy. It further notes that, in the present case, the Government did not raise an objection in respect of the new domestic remedy. In view of the above, the Court decides to pursue the examination of the present complaint (see Rifat Demir v. Turkey, no. 24267/07, §§ 34‑36, 4 June 2013).
42. 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.
B. Merits
43. The Government submitted that that the length of the proceedings could not be considered unreasonable.
44. The applicant reiterated that the criminal proceedings against him had not been concluded within a reasonable time.
45. The Court observes that the period to be taken into consideration began on 30 September 2003 at the latest,with the Istanbul State Security Court grantingthe public prosecutor’s request for the seizure of copies of the book, and ended on 8 April 2011, when the Istanbul Assize Court decided to discontinue the proceedings against the applicant. It thus lasted for more than seven years and six months over two levels of jurisdiction. The Court notes that the case was not particularly complex. Furthermore, no delays can be imputed to the applicant. As to the conduct of the authorities, the Court observes that it took both the Istanbul Assize Court and the Beyoğlu Criminal Court months to rule on the jurisdiction issue. Besides, following the second judgment given by the first-instance court on 29 June 2007, the Court of Cassation’s examination of the appeal lasted more than two years and seven months.
46. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that, in the instant case, the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement (Daneshpayeh v. Turkey, no. 21086/04, § 28, 16 July 2009, and Yavuz and Yaylalıv. Turkey, no. 12606/11, §§ 62-67, 17 December 2013).
47. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
48. The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy under domestic law whereby he could have contested the length of the proceedings brought against him. Article 13 reads:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
49. The Government contested that claim.
A. Admissibility
50. 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.
B. Merits
51. The Government did not make any submissions under this head.
52. The applicant reiterated his complaint.
53. The Court has examined similar issues in previous applications and has found violations of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the lack of an effective remedy under Turkish law whereby the applicants could have contested the length of the proceedings at issue (see Daneshpayeh, cited above, §§ 35-38; Ümmühan Kaplan, cited above, §§ 56-58; and Gürbüz and Özçelik v. Turkey, no. 11/05, §§ 29 and 30, 2 February 2016). It finds no reason to depart from that conclusion in the present case.
54. The Court accordingly concludes that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
55. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
56. The applicant claimed 35,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
57. The Government contested that claim.
58. The Court awards the applicant EUR 4,500 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
59. The applicant also claimed 5,048 Turkish liras (TRY)(approximately EUR 2,177)) for costs and expenses incurred before the Court.In support of his claim, the applicant submitted a receipt showing that he had paid his representative EUR 1,837 for his representation before the Court.
60. The Government contested that claim.
61. In accordance with 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. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,000 covering costs for the proceedings before the Court.
C. Default interest
62. 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. Joinsto the merits the Government’s objection regarding the applicant’s lack of victim status under Article 10 of the Convention and dismisses it;
2. Declares the complaint concerning the alleged breach of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant, as well as the complaints under Article 6 § 1and Article 13 of the Convention, admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
4. Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
5. Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
6. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three monthsfrom the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 4,500 (four thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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;
7. Dismissesthe remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 April 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan Bakırcı Robert Spano
Deputy Registrar President
_____________
[1]. An illegal armed organisation.
[2]. Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK.
[3]. The judgment is not final yet.
Leave a Reply