CASE OF SAHINER AND 10 OTHER CASES AGAINST TURKEY (SEE APPENDIX) RELATING TO THE LACK OF INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE MARTIAL LAW COURT AND THE LENGTH OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED
Doc ref: 29281/95;29286/95;33363/96;30451/96;31881/96;31892/96;31893/96;32962/96;33368/96;33370/96;29279/95 • ECHR ID: 001-56331
Document date: July 22, 2002
- Inbound citations: 67
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 1
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
Resolution ResDH (2002)86
concerning the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
on 25 September 2001, final on 25 December 2001
in the case of Åžahiner and 10 other cases against Turkey (see Appendix) relating to the lack of independence and impartiality of the Martial Law Court and the length of the criminal proceedings instituted
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 22 July 2002
at the 803rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the 11 cases, details of which appear in the appendix to this resolution, which were delivered on 25 September 2001 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once they had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;
Recalling that these cases originated in applications against Turkey, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights between 16 August 1995 and 27 June 1996 under former Article 25 of the Convention by 13 Turkish nationals, and that the Court, seized of the cases under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaints that there had been a breach of the applicants’ right to a fair trial due to the lack of independence and impartiality of the Ankara Martial Law Court, and that the criminal proceedings brought against them had not been concluded within a reasonable time;
Whereas in its judgments of 25 September 2001 concerning these cases the Court:
- held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention on account of the length of the criminal proceedings;
- held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention on account of the applicants’ trial by the Martial Law Court which lacked independence and impartiality1;
- held, unanimously, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicants, within three months from the date at which the judgments became final, the amounts of just satisfaction (set out in the appendix to this resolution) awarded in French Francs (to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of settlement), and that simple interest at an annual rate of 4.26 % would be payable on these sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgments of 25 September 2001, having regard to Turkey’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by them;
Whereas during the examination of the cases by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state recalled that the proceedings in these cases have all been terminated and that measures had already been taken to avoid new similar violations, notably through the entry into force of Law No. 3953 of 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the martial law courts (see Resolution DH(1998)82 in the Mitap and Müftüoğlu case against Turkey), and indicated that the Court’s judgments had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;
Having satisfied itself that on the dates indicated in the appendix, within the time-limits set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided for in the judgments of 25 September 2001,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Turkey, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases.
Appendix to Resolution ResDH (2002)86
Details of the 11 cases and the just satisfaction awarded to the applicants
Case
Application No.
Date of payment
Pecuniary Damage
Non-pecuniary Damage
Costs and Expenses
Åžahiner
29279/95
28/02/2002
-
100.000 FRF
15.000 FRF 2
Arı
29281/95
15/02/2002
-
100.000 FRF 2
-
Mehmet Ali Yılmaz
29286/95
05/03/2002
-
100.000 FRF 2
-
Fikret DoÄŸan
33363/96
15/02/2002
-
100.000 FRF 2
-
Selçuk Yıldırım
30451/96
15/02/2002
-
100.000 FRF 2
15.000 FRF 2
Tamkoç
31881/96
28/02/2002
-
100.000 FRF 2
8.000 FRF 2
Yalgın
31892/96
05/03/2002
-
100.000 FRF 2
8.000 FRF 2
Güneş
31893/96
22/03/2002
Loading citations...-
100.000 FRF 2
8.000 FRF 2
Kızılöz
32962/96
28/02/2002
-
80.000 FRF 2
-
Yakış
33368/96
28/02/2002
-
-
20.000 FRF 2
Arap Yalgın & others
33370/96
28/02/2002
-
100.000 FRF 2 to each applicant
13.000 FRF 2
Note 1 In the case of Arap Yalgın and others v. Turkey the Court found the violation of Article 6§1 only in respect of two of the three applicants since the prosecution of the third applicant had not been pursued.
Note 2 Together with any tax that maybe changeable.