SECOND SECTION
\nCASE OF ARSLAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
\n(Application no. 3752\/11)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n10 July 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Arslan and Others v. Turkey,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Paul Lemmens, President, Having deliberated in private on 19 June 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 3752\/11) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by six Turkish nationals, Mr\u00a0K\u00fcr\u015fad\u00a0Arslan, Ms\u00a0Dilek\u00a0K\u00f6mpe, Mr Ahmet Do\u011fan, Mr Ya\u015far\u00c7al\u0131\u015fkan, Mr G\u00f6khanTopalo\u011flu and Mr OlcayBayraktar(\u201cthe applicants\u201d), on 30\u00a0November 2010.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were represented by Mr E. Cinmen, a lawyer practising in Mu\u011fla. The Turkish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that their conviction under section7(2) of Law no. 3713 had constituted a violation of their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. They further contended under Article 6 of the Convention that the trial court had not been independent and impartial. The applicants complained under the same head about the failure of the domestic courts to suspend the pronouncement of their conviction and to provide reasoning for their decisions. The applicants lastly complained of a breach of Article 6 on account of the allegedly excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them and the alleged non-communication to them of the opinion of the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation on the merits of the case.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 May 2012 the application was communicated to theGovernment.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 December 2017 the Government were informed that the Court intended to assign the application to a Committee. In a letter dated 4\u00a0January 2018 the Government objected to the examination of the applications by a Committee. After having considered the Government\u2019s objection, the Court rejects it.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were born in 1983, 1973, 1983, 1986, 1984 and 1984. Mr\u00a0Ya\u015far\u00a0\u00c7al\u0131\u015fkan lives in Ankara. The other applicants live in Samsun.According to the applicants\u2019 submissions, which were not contested by the Government, at the time of the lodging of the application, they were serving the prison sentences arising out of their criminal convictions which gave rise to the present application.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 and 18 June 2005 seventeen members of the Maoist Communist Party (hereinafter \u201cthe MKP\u201d), an illegal organisation, were killed in a rural area within the administrative jurisdiction of the town of Ovac\u0131k, near the city of Tunceli, by members of the security forces.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 June 2005 a gathering was held in protest at the alleged unlawful killings of 17 and 18 June 2005 in Samsun. University students from the Samsun OndokuzMay\u0131s\u00dcniversitesi, including the applicants, gathered in front of the building of the Black Sea Fundamental Rights and Freedoms Association (KaradenizTemelHaklarve\u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerDerne\u011fi) where a press statement was read out.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 8 July 2005 one of the applicants, Mr Ahmet Do\u011fan, attended another reading out of a press statement in Samsun. The press statement concerned the killings of 17 and 18 June 2005, the arrest of a number of persons subsequent to the reading out of the press statement on 21\u00a0June 2005 and the alleged unlawful killing of a detainee by the police.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 February 2007 the Ankara public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against twenty-three people, including the applicants, charging them with disseminating propaganda in favour of the MKP, under section\u00a07(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). According to the indictment, during the gathering of 21 June 2005, slogans such as \u201cLong live revolutionary solidarity\u201d (\u201cYa\u015fas\u0131ndevrimcidayan\u0131\u015fma\u201d), \u201cWe have paid a price. We will make them pay a price.\u201d (\u201cBedel\u00f6dedik,bedel\u00f6detece\u011fiz.\u201d), \u201cMurderer State\u201d (\u201cKatildevlet\u201d), \u201cRevolutionary martyrs are immortal\u201d (\u201cDevrim\u015fehitleri\u00f6l\u00fcms\u00fczd\u00fcr.\u201d), \u201cMartyrs are immortal\u201d (\u201c\u015eehitnam\u0131r\u0131n\u201d), were chanted and the applicants participated in the gathering.The public prosecutor further noted that Mr Ahmet Do\u011fan had participated in the gathering of 8 June 2005, during which the following slogans had been chanted: \u201cNo emancipation alone, either all of us or none of us.\u201d (\u201cKurtulu\u015f yok tekba\u015f\u0131na, ya hep beraberyahi\u00e7birimiz.)\u201d, \u201cArrests, provocations and coercion cannot discourage us.\u201d (\u201cTutuklamalar, provakasyonlar, bask\u0131larbiziy\u0131ld\u0131ramaz.\u201d), \u201cWe will resist and succeed\u201d (\u201cDirenedirenekazanaca\u011f\u0131z.\u201d), \u201cWe have paid a price; we will make them pay a price.\u201d \u201cBedel\u00f6dedik, bedel\u00f6detece\u011fiz\u201d).<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 31 March 2009 the Ankara Assize Court found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced each of them to ten months\u2019 imprisonment pursuant to section 7(2) of Law no.3713, except for Mr Ahmet Do\u011fan, who was sentenced to twenty months\u2019 imprisonment. As regards the gathering of 21\u00a0June 2005, the assize court found it established that the slogan \u201cMartyrs are immortal\u201d had been chanted by Mr K\u00fcr\u015fadArslan, Ms DilekK\u00f6mpe, Mr\u00a0OlcayBayraktar and Mr Ahmet Do\u011fan and that the slogans \u201cThe murderer state will pay the price\u201d, \u201cRevolutionary martyrs are immortal\u201d and \u201cLong live revolutionary solidarity\u201d had been chanted by Mr\u00a0Ya\u015far\u00a0\u00c7al\u0131\u015fkan, Mr K\u00fcr\u015fadArslan and Ms DilekK\u00f6mpe. The court also found it established that all the applicants except for Mr\u00a0Olcay\u00a0Bayraktar had chanted the slogan \u201cWe have paid a price;we will make them pay a price\u201d and that Mr Ahmet Do\u011fan had carried a banner bearing the slogan \u201cOvac\u0131k Martyrs are immortal\u201d. As regards the gathering of 8 July 2005, the court noted that Mr Ahmet Do\u011fanhad chanted the slogans\u201cArrests, provocations and coercion cannot discourage us.\u201d, \u201cWe will resist and succeed\u201d and \u201cWe have paid a price;we will make them pay a price.\u201d during thatpublic gathering.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0In its judgment, the Ankara Assize Court referred to Article 10 of the Convention as well as to the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of S\u00fcrek v.\u00a0Turkey(no.\u00a01) ([GC], no. 26682\/95, ECHR 1999\u2011IV) and the report of the European Commission of Human Rights in the case of Karata\u015f v.\u00a0Turkey (no.\u00a023168\/94, Commission\u2019s report of 11 December 1997). The court held that by chanting the above-mentioned slogans the applicants had not exercised their democratic rights but had glorified terror by adopting the style of discourse of terror organisations and that they had not distanced themselves from violence. In the court\u2019s view, by chanting those slogans the applicants had not intended to find a solution to a problem but had praised and glorified the source of the problem, that is to say, the terrorist organisations concerned. Hence, the applicants had incited terror. The Ankara Assize Court concluded that chanting the slogans in question could not be considered as falling within the scope of the right to freedom of expression.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 8 July 2010 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 31\u00a0March 2009 in so far as it concerned the applicants\u2019 conviction.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On unspecified dates the applicants served their prison sentences.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant domestic law applicable at the material time can be found in Belge v. Turkey (no. 50171\/09, \u00a7 19, 6 December 2016).<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0In particular, at the time of the events giving rise to the present application, section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 read as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cAny 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\u00a0years and [receive] a judicial fine of five million liras to one billion liras …\u201d<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE GOVERNMENT\u2019S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THE APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 37 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0In their letter dated 4 January 2018, the Government claimed that on 19\u00a0August 2013 they had submitted a unilateral declaration and requested that the Court strike out the application. They submitted a copy of the unilateral declaration in question by way of annex to their letter.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes at the outset that the Government\u2019s unilateral declarationwas only submitted to the Court for the first time on 4\u00a0January 2018, contrary to the Government\u2019sassertion. It further notes that, under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to strike out an application under Article 37 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by the respondent Government, even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. It will, however, depend on the particular circumstances whether the unilateral declaration offers a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see TahsinAcar v. Turkey(preliminaryobjections) [GC],no.\u00a026307\/95, \u00a7 75, ECHR 2003\u2011VI, andAngelov and Others v.\u00a0Bulgaria, no.\u00a043586\/04, \u00a7 12, 4 November 2010).<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0In this connection, the Court observes that Article 311 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Code on Criminal Procedure (Law no. 5271), provides that where a final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights establishes that a judgment has violated the Convention or its Protocols, a retrial may be requested. The Court therefore considers that the unilateral declaration, which will deprive the applicant of filing a retrial request, does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case (see \u00c7alar v.\u00a0Turkey [Committee], no.\u00a09626\/12, \u00a7\u00a011, 28 November 2017).<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0This being so, the Court rejects the Government\u2019s request to strike the application out under Article 37 of the Convention and will accordingly pursue its examination of the admissibility and merits of the case.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings brought against them under section\u00a07(2) of Law no. 3713, and their subsequent conviction, had constituted a violation of their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers at the outset that the application should be examined from the standpoint of Article 10 which reads:<\/p>\n \u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone 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.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that on 5 July 2012 a new law (Law\u00a0no.\u00a06352) had entered into force amending various laws with a view to rendering judicial services more effective and to suspending cases and sentences given in cases concerning crimes committed through the press and other media. They claimed that the applicants should have applied to the trial court and requested that the latter suspend the execution of their conviction in the light of the provisions of Law no. 6352. In the Government\u2019s view, the applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies as they had not availed themselves of the remedy provided for in Law\u00a0no.\u00a06352.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the merits of the applicants\u2019 complaint under Article\u00a010, the Government submitted that the interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression had pursued the legitimate aims of the protection of public security and national security. They further submitted that the applicants had chanted the slogans in question only four days after seventeen members of the MKP had been killed by the security forces. They noted that the applicants had chanted the slogan \u201cWe have paid a price;we will make them pay a price\u201d, and thereby incited to violence. The Government contended that the security forces had not intervened to stop the reading out of the press statements and that the applicants had been free to express their opinions.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the Government\u2019s submission that the applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies, the Court notes that the remedy referred to by the Government does not provide a substantive review of the case (see \u00d6ner and T\u00fcrkv. Turkey, no. 51962\/12, \u00a7 17, 31 March 2015). Had the applicants applied to the trial court, the latter would have merely reviewed the questionof whether the execution of the applicants\u2019sentences should have been suspended following the amendments made by Law\u00a0no.\u00a06352.\u00a0The applicants\u2019 conviction had become final as a result of the Court of Cassation\u2019s decision of 8 July 2010, and according to the applicants\u2019 submissions\u2012 which were not contested by the Government\u2012 the applicants served the prison sentences arising out of that conviction before the entry into force of Law no. 6352 (see paragraph5 above). Hence, the Court finds that the applicants were not required to make use of the remedy referred to by the Government. It follows that this complaint cannot be rejected for non\u2011exhaustion of domestic remedies and the Government\u2019s objection must therefore be dismissed.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill\u2011founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0As to the merits of the case, the Court considers that the applicants\u2019 criminal conviction amounted to an \u201cinterference\u201d with the exercise of their freedom of expression and that the interference was based on section 7(2) of Law\u00a0no.\u00a03713. In the light of its findings regarding the necessity of the interference (see paragraph 29 below) the Court considers that it is not required to conduct an examination of the \u201clawfulness\u201d thereof. The Court is also prepared to accept that, in the present case, the national authorities may be considered to have pursued the legitimate aims of protecting national security and preventing disorder and crime (see FarukTemel v.\u00a0Turkey, no. 16853\/05, \u00a7 52, 1 February 2011).<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the necessity of the interference in a democratic society, the Court notes that it has already examined similar grievances in a number of cases and found violations of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention (see, for example, Savg\u0131n v. Turkey, no. 13304\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 39-48, 2 February 2010; G\u00fcl and Others v. Turkey, no. 4870\/02, \u00a7\u00a7 32-45, 8 June 2010; Mente\u015f v.\u00a0Turkey (no. 2), no. 33347\/04, \u00a7\u00a7 39-54, 25 January 2011; K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7 and Eren v.\u00a0Turkey, no. 43807\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 20-31, 29 November 2011; FarukTemel, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 58-64; Yavuz and Yaylal\u0131v. Turkey, no. 12606\/11, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a042-55, 17\u00a0December 2013; \u00d6ner and T\u00fcrk,cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 19-27, 31March 2015; G\u00fclc\u00fc v. Turkey, no. 17526\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 110-117, 19 January 2016; andBelge, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a024-38). In particular, in the above-mentioned case of Yavuz and Yaylal\u0131, the Court found a breach of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the conviction of Ms Yavuz and Mr Yaylal\u0131under section 7(2) of Law\u00a0no.\u00a03713 for having attended the public gatherings of 21 June and 8\u00a0July 2005 and having chanted the slogans described in paragraph 9 above.<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has examined the present case and considers that the Government have not put forward any argument which would require it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. In particular, the Ankara Assize Court convicted the applicants for not distancing themselves from violence and for adopting terrorist organisations\u2019 discourse without providing an explanation as to whyit considered that chanting the slogans referred to in the indictment had constituted encouragement of violence, armed resistance or an uprising, or had been capable of inciting to violence. In the Court\u2019s view, the applicants\u2019 reaction to the above-mentioned killings amounted to a criticism of the acts committed by the security forces but did not incite the use of violence, armed resistance or uprising and did not constitute hate speech (see Yavuz and Yaylal\u0131,cited above, \u00a752). Besides, the slogans in question are well-known and stereotyped leftist slogans and they were chanted during peaceful public gatherings(see G\u00fcl and Others, cited above, \u00a7 41). There is also nothing in the case file showing that the applicants were involved in any violent acts or had the intention of inciting violence. The Ankara Assize Court, however, does not appear to have given consideration to any of the above factors. In sum, the Court considers that the national courts did not provide \u201crelevant and sufficient\u201d reasons for the applicants\u2019 criminal conviction under section 7(2) of Law\u00a0no.\u00a03713.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0Lastly,\u00a0the Court notes the severity of the penalty imposed on the applicants, that is to say ten months\u2019 imprisonment, and in the case of Ahmet Do\u011fan even twenty months\u2019 imprisonment, which the applicants served (see Karata\u015f v. Turkey [GC], no. 23168\/94, \u00a753, ECHR 1999\u2011IV).<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0The Court concludes that the interference in question was not \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the trial court had not been independent and impartial. They further complained about the failure of the domestic courts to suspend the pronouncement of their conviction and to provide reasoning for their decisions. The applicants also complained of a breach of Article 6 on account of the allegedly excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them and the alleged non-communication to them of the opinion of the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation on the merits of the case.<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0Taking into account the facts of the case and its finding of a violation of Article10 of the Convention, the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility or the merits of the applicants\u2019 complaint under Article 6 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf ofValentin C\u00e2mpeanu v. Romania [GC], no.\u00a047848\/08, \u00a7156, ECHR 2014, and the cases cited therein).<\/p>\n IV.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0Article\u00a041 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0Mr K\u00fcr\u015fadArslan, Mr Ya\u015far\u00c7al\u0131\u015fkan and Mr\u00a0Olcay\u00a0Bayraktar claimed 40,000 euros (EUR) and Ms Dilek\u00a0K\u00f6mpe, Mr\u00a0Ahmet\u00a0Do\u011fan, Mr\u00a0G\u00f6khanTopalo\u011flu claimed 45,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\u00a0Mr K\u00fcr\u015fadArslan and Mr\u00a0Ahmet\u00a0Do\u011fan submitted that they had suffered pecuniary damage as a result of their criminal conviction since they had obtained degree qualifications in teaching but had been unable to work as teachers due to their criminal conviction. MsDilekK\u00f6mpe submitted that she had worked as an agricultural engineer prior to her conviction and that she had had to quit her job in the private sector as she had had to serve her prison sentence.Mr\u00a0G\u00f6khan\u00a0Topalo\u011flu submitted that he had been a teacher working on a contract basis prior to his conviction. He claimed that as a result of his conviction he had lost his teachingpost and therefore his salary.<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested those claims.<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0The Court finds that no causal link has been satisfactorily established between the applicants\u2019 alleged loss of earnings and the violation of Article\u00a010 of the Convention. Moreover, the loss which the applicants claim to have suffered has not been sufficiently proved. It therefore rejects the applicants\u2019 claims for pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0However, the Court considers that the applicants must have sustained non-pecuniary damage which the finding of a violation of the Convention in this judgment does not suffice to remedy. Ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awardsMrK\u00fcr\u015fadArslan, Ms\u00a0Dilek\u00a0K\u00f6mpe, Mr\u00a0Ya\u015far\u00a0\u00c7al\u0131\u015fkan, Mr G\u00f6khanTopalo\u011fluand Mr\u00a0Olcay\u00a0Bayraktar EUR\u00a05,000 and Mr Ahmet Do\u011fan EUR 10,000 in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants did not make a separate claim for their costs and expenses incurred before the domestic authorities and the Court. They contended that they had agreed to pay their representative 15% of any compensation awarded to each of them by the Court and submitted copies of the fee agreements that they had concluded with their representative containing the above-mentioned terms.<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested those claims.<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the applicants failed to quantify their claims and that they gave no breakdown of the number of hours of work for which their lawyer sought payment. Nor did they submit any information or documents showing the costs incurred by them – such as translation, postage, stationary and secretarial fees etc. – in submitting their application to the Court. \u00a0Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award the applicants any sum under this head (Rule 60 \u00a7 2 of the Rules of Court).<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the complaint under Article 10 of the Convention admissible;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there is no need to examine the admissibility or the merits of the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the following applicants within three monthsthe following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) each to Mr\u00a0K\u00fcr\u015fad\u00a0Arslan, Ms\u00a0Dilek\u00a0K\u00f6mpe, Mr Ya\u015far\u00c7al\u0131\u015fkan, Mr G\u00f6khanTopalo\u011flu and Mr\u00a0Olcay\u00a0Bayraktar, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) to Mr Ahmet Do\u011fan, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0that 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;<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the applicants\u2019 claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 July 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Paul Lemmens
\nValeriu Gri\u0163co,
\nSt\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m, judges,
\nand Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n