Search
document

Document text Analytics

TAHMAZOGLU v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 28137/95 • ECHR ID: 001-124484

Document date: July 2, 1997

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

TAHMAZOGLU v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 28137/95 • ECHR ID: 001-124484

Document date: July 2, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 28137/95

by Ferruh TAHMAZOGLU

against Turkey

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 2 July 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs. G.H. THUNE, President

MM. J.-C. GEUS

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

A. ARABADJIEV

Ms. M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 1 February 1995

by Ferruh Tahmazoglu against Turkey and registered on 4 August 1995

under file No. 28137/95;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, born in 1947, is a Turkish citizen and works as

a tailor in Ãœnye district belonging to the province of Ordu. He is

representing himself before the Commission.

The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may

be summarised as follows.

On 9 March 1989 the applicant was sentenced to one year and eight

months' imprisonment for forgery of an official document under Article

342/1 of the Turkish Penal Code by the Ãœnye Assize Court.

On 10 April 1989, following his conviction, an article with the

title, "Cunning moneylender has been caught and sent to prison" was

published by a journalist, Kenan Aydin, in a local newspaper, Yeni

Hamle. In this article, it was stated that the applicant was known as

a cunning moneylender and that he had been sentenced to imprisonment

since he had forged a voucher of his debtor in order to get more

interest.

The applicant lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation

against the judgment of the Ãœnye Assize Court which had sentenced him

to imprisonment.

On 29 November 1989 the sixth chamber of the Court of Cassation

quashed the decision of the Ãœnye Assize Court on account of

insufficient evidence for conviction.

On 20 February 1990 the Ünye Assize Court adopted the decision

of the Court of Cassation and acquitted the applicant on the same

grounds.

On 25 October 1990, the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment

of acquittal of the Ãœnye Assize Court dated 20 February 1990.

In the meantime, on 21 March 1990 the applicant had filed a suit

against the journalist for defamation in the press. He requested the

First Instance Court to award compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

On 27 May 1991 the Ünye First Instance Court awarded compensation

to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by him.

The journalist appealed against the judgment of the Ünye First

Instance Court which on 10 November 1992 was quashed by the fourth

chamber of the Court of Cassation. That Court held that the journalist

had not defamed the applicant since the article in the local newspaper

had been based on true facts at the time when it was published, which

was after the conviction of the applicant by the Ãœnye Assize Court.

On 20 May 1993 the Ünye First Instance Court decided not to adopt

the decision of the fourth chamber of the Court of Cassation, which

had quashed its judgment awarding non-pecuniary damage to the

applicant. The Ãœnye First Instance Court, insisting on its previous

judgment dated 27 May 1991, held that the journalist had attacked the

applicant's reputation through his statements in the newspaper article.

On 2 February 1994 the joint civil chambers of the Court of

Cassation quashed the judgment of the Ãœnye First Instance Court and

held that it was unlawful not to adopt the decision of the fourth

chamber of the Court of Cassation.

On 29 June 1994 the joint civil chambers of the Court of

Cassation dismissed the applicant's request for rectification of its

decision dated 2 February 1994.

On 27 November 1994 the Ünye First Instance Court adopted the

decision of the joint civil chambers of the Court of Cassation and

refused to award compensation for non-pecuniary damage to the

applicant.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

that his right to a fair trial was violated due to the decision of the

Court of Cassation, which quashed the judgment of the Ãœnye First

Instance Court. In this regard, the applicant submits that the Court

of Cassation had approved compensation claims on account of non-

pecuniary damage in similar cases.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that he did not have a fair trial before

the Court of Cassation as guaranteed by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)

of the Convention.

The Commission recalls that under Article 19 (Art. 19) of the

Convention its sole task is to ensure observance of the engagements

undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the Convention. It is not

competent to examine applications concerning errors of law or fact

allegedly committed by the competent national authorities, which are

competent, in the first place, to interpret and apply domestic law (No.

25062/94, Dec. 18.10.95, D.R. 83 p. 77).

In this case, the Commission notes that the applicant's

complaints concern the national courts', in particular the Court of

Cassation's, evaluation of the facts and the evidence and the

interpretation of the domestic law. The Court of Cassation held that

there was no defamation of the applicant's reputation since the article

about the applicant had been published in the newspaper after the

applicant had been convicted by the Ãœnye Assize Court. The Commission

finds no evidence or basis on which to conclude that the Court of

Cassation, in establishing the facts or interpreting the domestic law,

acted in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner. Therefore, there is no

appearance that the Court of Cassation violated the applicant's right

under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within

the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE

Secretary President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant