AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 22947/93

                      by N.A.

                      against Turkey

      The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

28 February 1994, the following members being present:

      MM.  C.A. NØRGAARD, President

           S. TRECHSEL

           A. WEITZEL

           F. ERMACORA

           A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

           J.-C. SOYER

           H.G. SCHERMERS

           H. DANELIUS

           F. MARTINEZ

      Mrs. J. LIDDY

      MM.  L. LOUCAIDES

           M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

           B. MARXER

           G.B. REFFI

           M.A. NOWICKI

           I. CABRAL BARRETO

           B. CONFORTI

           N. BRATZA

           I. BÉKÉS

           J. MUCHA

           D. SVÁBY

      Mr.  H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

      Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

      Having regard to the application introduced on 1st November 1993 by

N.A. against Turkey and registered on 22 November 1993 under file No.

22947/93;

      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 is a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, born in 1953

and resident at Diyarbakir. She is represented before the Commission by

Professor Kevin Boyle and Ms. Françoise Hampson, both of the University

of Essex.

      The facts as presented by the applicant may be summarised as

follows.

      The applicant has been, until recently, Head of the Diyarbakir

Branch of the Education and Science Workers Union (Egit-Sen). The Union

was founded in 1990, but the applicant's branch was declared illegal on

28 September 1992 by the Office of the Chief of Police and the Mayor of

Diyarbakir.

      Because of her activities on behalf of the members of Egit-Sen, the

applicant has been the object of persistent threats and other forms of

pressure which eventually forced her to leave her occupation as a

teacher, to cease to function as a trade union official, and to be

deprived of compensation otherwise due to her under Turkish law. She now

lives alone with two children and remains in fear for her life and those

of her children.

      On 26 October 1992 a meeting between the applicant, some of her

colleagues and the National Education Director had been arranged for the

following day. The purpose was to appeal to the Director to put an end

to attacks against members of Egit-Sen, since in October 1992 four

members had been attacked, one of them had died, others were undergoing

treatment, and about 40 members had been exiled in other regions.

      When the applicant arrived at the meeting on 27 October 1992, she

saw the building surrounded by plain clothes police and cameras made

ready to film those arriving for the meeting. The Director said he could

only receive a small group. The applicant organised a group of seven

persons and told the others to leave, but the police did not allow

anybody to leave and filmed and verbally abused the persons who had

gathered there. Everybody's identity was checked. A woman who did not

wish to show her identity papers was pulled by the hair and bundled into

a waiting police car. Another thirteen educational workers were also

taken away.

      After the meeting the applicant went to the City Governor to

complain of their treatment. The Governor's reply was that they had been

told not to go to the National Education Directorate and that they had

bad motives. He further said: "You don't raise your voices when the

State's soldiers or police die. Why do you want to meet when teachers

die?"

      The day after these events the applicant received a telephone call

and was told: "You are also going to die. It is now your turn. We are

going to kill you off."

      In November 1992 the applicant applied to the Diyarbakir State

Prosecutor about the incident on 27 October 1992. After initial delays

the case was dismissed in February 1993.

      After the events on 27 October 1992 the applicant made a statement

to the newspaper Diyarbakir Soz on 31 October 1992 under the headline

"Eleven teachers detained in Diyarbakir". In that article she gave an

account of the events prior to and including the meeting at the

Directorate, focusing on the fact that the meeting had been by prior

arrangement.

      On 23 November 1992 she made another statement to the same newspaper

in an open letter bearing the headline "24 November is not Teachers'

Day". Referring to the fact that 24 November is a day designated to

honour teachers, she stated in that open letter that teachers had little

cause to celebrate such a day, and proceeded to indicate the ways in

which education workers suffered. She listed, inter alia, the lack of

trade union rights, the hours of work of teachers and their clothing

allowance, the fact that students feel pressured to give a gift to their

teacher which they often cannot afford. She then focused on her region

and pointed to the exiles and attacks on teachers in the region, to the

fact that classes were too large and to the fact that police interfere

with the functioning of secondary schools by arresting students in class

and insulting teachers.

      As a result of these statements to the press, and of her trade union

activity, the applicant was the subject of three formal findings by the

National Education Ministry:

1.    On 22 February 1993 the Diyarbakir National Education Directorate

declared that the applicant had violated Article 26 of Law No. 657, which

prohibits statutory applications or complaints to be made jointly by two

or more State officials and which also bans collective action by civil

servants. The Directorate concluded that this was behaviour not suited

to the dignity of a civil servant, which required the issue of a formal

warning according to Article 125 of the said Law.

2.    On 5 March 1993 the Diyarbakir Provincial National Education

Disciplinary Committee found that the applicant had taken part in the

activity of a trade union whose authorities and responsibilities were not

known, i.e. was an unauthorised and therefore illegal trade union. The

applicant was also found to be in violation of Section 4 of Law No. 657

insofar as it prohibits "involvement in collective action and behaviour

unsuitable to the dignity of a State official" as well as Article 26 of

the same Law, which prohibits State officials from associating in groups

of two or more in order to make an application or a complaint to their

employer. Because of her statement to the newspaper on 23 November 1992

the applicant was also found to be in violation of Article 125 D(g) of

the same Law, which prohibits State officials from "giving information

and statements to the press, news agencies, radio or television

institutions when not authorised to do so". As a result of these

findings, the Committee sanctioned the applicant by a reduction in

salary, in accordance with Article 125 C.

3.    On 14 May 1993 the Diyarbakir Provincial National Education

Disciplinary Committee found that the applicant's statement to the

newspaper on 31 October 1992 had been a violation of Article 125 D(g) of

Law No. 657. Her case was then referred to the Provincial Office of

National Education for consideration of blockage of her promotion, as

authorised by Article 126 of the same Law.

      Subsequently the applicant has been the subject of threats and

pressure which have obliged her to leave her occupation as a teacher, and

hence her position in the trade union. Because of the disciplinary

penalties she has not been able to receive her severance pay and

obstacles are placed in the way of her collection of her pension. She is

also continuously being exposed to threats.

COMPLAINTS

      The applicant complains of violations of Articles 2, 6, 10, 11, 13

and 14 (in conjunction with Articles 6 and 11) of the Convention and

Article 1 of Protocol No 1.

      As to Article 2, the applicant alleges that the threats against her

create a well-founded fear that her life is in jeopardy. In view of the

high incidence and systematic pattern of killings of Kurdish teachers in

the Diyarbakir area, particularly of those prominent in the affairs of

the Kurdish people, it would be reasonable to expect that the Turkish

Government should take special measures to protect her right to life. By

failing to do so, the Government is in violation of Article 2.

      As to Article 6, the applicant states that none of the disciplinary

decisions taken against her was the product of a fair and public hearing

by an independent and impartial tribunal.

      As to Article 10, the applicant submits that the penalties imposed

upon her as a result of her statements to the newspaper are in conflict

with her right to freedom of expression, for which there is no

justification under para. 2 of Article 10.

      As to Article 11, the applicant complains that she was subject to

disciplinary penalties because of her trade union activities. She has

also been exposed to threats and intimidation with a view to making her

relinquish her functions as a trade unionist and to reprisals thereafter.

Her right to peaceful assembly was also violated in connection with the

meeting on 27 October 1992.

      As to Article 13, the applicant complains of the lack of an

effective remedy against the violations which occurred on

27 October 1992. She complained to the Diyarbakir State Prosecutor who,

without any investigation and on the basis of statements by the police,

dismissed the complaint.

      As to Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 6 and 11, the

applicant states that the violation of Article 6 in her case is the

result of a breakdown in the system of justice to a degree that occurs

on a systematic basis only in South-East Turkey, and that as a trade

unionist she was subjected to legal disabilities and penalties which are

not applied to trade union officials in other parts of Turkey.

      As to Article 1 of Protocol No 1, the applicant considers that there

has been a violation of her right to peaceful enjoyment of her

possessions as a result of the refusal to make pension and severance

payments after the termination of her employment.

      As regards the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the applicant points

out that, in regard to the incident on 27 October 1992, she applied to

the Diyarbakir State Prosecutor who dismised the complaint in February

1993. She has not taken the matter further, since this would serve no

purpose. There is also a fear of reprisal, which should be seen as a

legitimate reason for not exhausting remedies. In any case remedies are

not effective. There is a common practice of arbitrary application of the

law, and for none of the wrongs she has suffered is there adequate

prospect of her receiving justice by way of further recourse to domestic

remedies.

      As regards the six months' time-limit, the applicant considers that,

in view of the threats and intimidation to which she is exposed, there

is a continuing situation for the purposes of fixing the time-limit for

application to the Commission. Alternatively, the latest disciplinary

decision taken against her was dated 14 May 1993, which is within the six

months' time-limit.-limit. As a further alternative, she considers that the

six months' rule should be suspended in her case, since she has not been

in a position to supply the full facts because of fear of reprisal from

the authorities.

THE LAW

1.    The applicant complains of a violation of Article 2 (Art. 2) of the

Convention in that the Turkish authorities have allegedly failed to

provide her with the protection she needs in a situation where she has

well-founded fears for her life.

      Article 2 (Art. 2) of the Convention provides, inter alia, that

"Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law". It is true that

this provision imposes on the Contracting States an obligation to take

appropriate steps to protect life (cf. No. 9348/81, Dec. 28.2.83, D.R. 32

p. 190; No. 11604/85, Naddaf v. the Federal Republic of Germany, Dec.

10.10.86, D.R. 50 P. 259). However, in the present case the applicant has

not shown that she is exposed to such threats to her life as would make

it necessary for the authorities to take specific protective measures.

      It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the

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

2.    The applicant next complains of a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6)

of the Convention in that she did not have a fair and public hearing by

an independent and impartial tribunal in the disciplinary proceedings

brought against her.

      Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention provides, inter alia, that "In

the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal

charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ...

by an independent and impartial tribunal ...".

      However, the proceedings brought against the applicant were clearly

of a disciplinary character and cannot be considered to have concerned

either her civil rights or obligations or the determination of a criminal

charge against her (cf. No. 9208/80, Saraiva de Carvalho v. Portugal,

Dec. 10.7.81, D.R. 26 p.262; No. 10059/82, Dec. 5.7.85, D.R. 43 p.5).

Consequently, Article 6 (Art. 6) was not applicable to those proceedings.

      It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with

the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 27 para.

2 (Art. 27-2).

3.    The applicant also complains of a violations of Article 10 (Art. 10)

of the Convention in that she has been subjected to disciplinary measures

because of statements which she made to a local newspaper.

      Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention reads, insofar as relevant,

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. ...

           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 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."

      The Commission notes that on 5 March 1993 the Diyarbakir Provincial

National Education Discipline Committee imposed a disciplinary penalty

on the applicant for having made a statement to a newspaper on

23 November 1992.

      However, according to Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the

Commission may only deal with a complaint which has lodged within a time-

limit of six months from the date of the final domestic decision. The

present application was introduced on 1 November 1993, i.e. more than six

months after the contested decision of 5 March 1993.

      The applicant has stated that, in view of the threats and

intimidation to which she has been exposed and her fear of reprisals, the

situation should be regarded as a continuing one, or that the six months'

time-limit should be considered to have been suspended in her case.

      The Commission cannot find that, as regards the disciplinary

sanction for the statement to the press on 23 November 1992, there exists

a continuing violation of the Convention. Nor has it been shown that the

applicant was unable to complain to the Commission during the six months

following the decision of 5 March 1993.

      It follows that the complaint regarding the decision of 5 March 1993

must be rejected in accordance with Articles 26 and 27 para. 3

(Art. 26, 27-3) of the Convention.

      The Commission further notes that, in its decision of 14 May 1993,

the Diyarbakir Provincial National Education Disciplinary Committee found

that the applicant had violated Turkish law by addressing a statement to

a local newspaper on 31 October 1992. As far as the complaint regarding

this decision is concerned, the Commission finds it necessary to obtain

the observations of the respondent Government before taking a decision

on its admissibility.

4.    The applicant further complains of a violation of her right to

peaceful assembly ensured by Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention in

respect of the following:

-     alleged threats and intimidation with a view to making her

      relinquish her functions as a trade unionist;

-     alleged reprisals after she had relinquished these functions;

-     the decisions of 22 February 1993 (the Diyarbakir National

      Education Directorate) and 5 March 1993 (the Diyarbakir

      Provincial National Education Disciplinary Committee) in which

      the applicant's exercise of trade union rights were found to be in

      violation of Turkish law; and

-     police intervention and the ensuing events on 27 October 1992.

      Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention provides as follows:

           "1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and

           to freedom of association with others, including the right to

           form and to join trade unions for the protection of his

           interests.

           2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these

           rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are

           necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national

           security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or

           crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the

           protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article

           shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the

           exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of

           the police or of the administration of the State."

a)    The Commission first considers that, insofar as the applicant

alleges in general terms that she has been exposed to threats,

intimidation and reprisals, she has not substantiated her complaints.

This aspect of her complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded within

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

b)    As regards the decisions of 22 February and 5 March 1993, the

Commission notes that the application was introduced more than six months

after the dates of these decisions. For the reasons indicated above under

point 3 above, the Commission considers that in this respect there is no

continuing situation and that it has not been shown that the applicant

was unable to complain to the Commission within the six months' time-

limit.

      As regards the complaint about events on 27 October 1992, the

Commission notes that the applicant complained to the State Prosecutor,

who dismissed the matter in February 1993. She did not, however, complain

to the Commission within six months of this rejection of her complaint.

In this respect too, there is no question of a continuing situation, and

it has not been shown that the applicant was unable to lodge her

complaint with the Commission within the applicable time-limit.

      It follows that, as regards the decisions of 22 February and

5 March 1993 and events on 27 October 1992, the applicant's complaints

must be rejected pursuant to Articles 26 and 27 para. 3 (Art. 26, 27-3)

of the Convention.

5.    The applicant next complains of a violation of Article 13 (Art. 13)

of the Convention in that there was no effective remedy against the

alleged violation of her rights with the events on 27 October 1992.

      Article 13 (Art. 13) guarantees the right to an effective remedy

before a national authority in respect of violations of Convention rights

and freedoms.

      The Commission recalls that it has found the complaint regarding the

events on 27 October 1992 to be inadmissible for non-observance of the

six months' time-limit (see point 4 b) above). It follows that the same

ground of inadmissibility applies to the complaint under Article 13

(Art. 13) of the Convention, which must, therefore, also be rejected

pursuant to Articles 26 and 27 para. 3 (Art. 26, 27-3).

6.    The applicant also complains of violations of Article 14 in

conjunction with Articles 6 and 11 (Art. 14+6+11) of the Convention, in

that the situation in South-East Turkey is such as to constitute

discrimination against her in the enjoyment of her rights under the

latter provisions.

      Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention prohibits discrimination in

the enjoyment of Convention rights and freedoms.

      The Commission recalls that the applicant's complaint under Article

6 (Art. 6) has been found to be incompatible with the Convention ratione

materiae (see point 2 above), and that the applicant's complaints under

Article 11 (Art. 11) have been found to be partly manifestly ill-founded

and partly inadmissible for having being introduced after the expiry of

the six months' time-limit (see point 4 above). The Commission finds that

the complaints about violations of Article 14 (Art. 14+6+11) in

conjunction with these Articles are inadmissible on the same grounds.

They must, therefore, be rejected pursuant to Article 27 para. 2 and

Articles 26 and 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-2, 26, 27-3) respectively.

7.    Finally, the applicant complains of a violation of Article 1 of

Protocol No 1 (P1-1) in that her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her

possessions has been breached as a result of the refusal to pay her a

pension and a severance allowance after the termination of her

employment.

      The first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (P1-1) provides

as follows:

           "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful

           enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his

           possessions except in the public interest and subject to the

           conditions provided for by law and by the general principles

           of international law".

      However, the Commission does not find it established that the

applicant had, under Turkish law, a right to the financial benefits at

issue. Consequently, it has not been shown that she has been denied the

peaceful enjoyment of her possessions or that she has been deprived of

any property.

      It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the

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

      For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

-     ADJOURNS its examination of the applicant's complaint about a

      violation of her freedom of expression allegedly resulting from the

      decision of the Provincial National Education Disciplinary Committee

      on 14 May 1993;

-     DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission        President of the Commission

       (H.C. KRÜGER)                     (C.A. NØRGAARD)