AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 24563/94
by Oguz ARAL, Galip TEKiN and inci ARAL
against Turkey
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 14 January 1998, the following members being present:
MM J.-C. GEUS, President
M.A. NOWICKI
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
Mrs G.H. THUNE
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 2 June 1994 by
Oguz ARAL, Galip TEKiN and inci ARAL against Turkey and registered on
7 July 1994 under file No. 24563/94 ;
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 applicants, born in 1936, 1951 and 1947, are Turkish citizens
and resident in istanbul. They are represented before the Commission
by Mrs Semray Doganay, a lawyer practising in istanbul.
The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicants,
may be summarised as follows.
The first and second applicants, Oguz Aral and Galip Tekin, are
cartoonists and the third applicant, inci Aral, is the editor of a
magazine, "Digil".
The applicant, Oguz Aral, had designed some cartoon characters.
These cartoons had been published especially in two magazines, "Girgir"
and "Firt".
In 1975 a company, ilbas A.S. (ileri Basin Ve Yayin Endüstrisi
Anonim Sirketi), bought the two magazines, "Girgir" and "Firt", which
featured those characters.
On 6 November 1989 ilbas A.S. sold the two magazines to an
entrepreneur, H.E.A. Thereafter, the applicants, along with other
cartoonists, were dismissed.
They then continued to draw the same characters for the magazine
"Digil".
On 1 November 1989 H.E.A. sued the applicants in the istanbul
Civil Court of General Jurisdiction. He requested that the applicants
be stopped from infringing his copyright. He maintained that the
applicants had been using, for the "Digil" magazine, the materials,
including the prints of the cartoons, that belonged to the archives of
his two magazines ("Girgir" and "Firt"). He maintained that he was the
owner of the cartoon characters, in accordance with Article 8 para. 2
of the Law on Intellectual Property Rights (Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri
Kanunu), as the applicants had created them during their contract with
ilbas A.S. of which he was the successor.
The applicants argued before the court that they were the owners
of the characters in accordance with Article 8 para. 1 of the Law on
Intellectual Property Rights which provides that the creator of an
artistic work is the owner.
On 2 April 1992 the istanbul Civil Court of General Jurisdiction
decided that all the financial rights over the artistic materials which
had been produced by the applicants during their contract with ilbas
A.S., either published in the two magazines, "Girgir" and "Firt", or
unpublished but held in the archives of the two magazines, belonged to
H.E.A. According to the court, these materials could not be published
without the latter's permission. The court added that the characters
created by the applicants could be used by them in other magazines or
newspapers but with other subjects and stories. In particular, the
court relied on the Law on Intellectual Property Rights and on the
applicants' contract with ilbas A.S.
On 9 June 1992 the applicants lodged an appeal with the Court of
Cassation against the judgment delivered by the istanbul Civil Court
of General Jurisdiction. They alleged that they were the owners of the
disputed artistic materials and that the istanbul Civil Court of
General Jurisdiction had misinterpreted the domestic law.
On 14 October 1993 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal.
It agreed with the istanbul Civil Court of General Jurisdiction as
regards its reasoning and assessment of the evidence.
The applicants applied again to the Court of Cassation for its
decision to be rectified.
On 8 March 1994 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants'
request for rectification.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that
they did not have a fair trial as the istanbul Civil Court of General
Jurisdiction decided that all the financial rights over the disputed
artistic materials belonged to H.E.A.
2. The applicants further complain that the length of the civil
proceedings between 1989 and 1994 exceeded the reasonable time
requirement under Article 6 of the Convention.
3. The applicants also complain that the result of their trial
constituted a violation of their right to freedom of thought and
freedom of expression. They invoke Article 9 of the Convention.
4. They also complain of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
to the Convention in that all the financial rights over the disputed
artistic materials were given to H.E.A. by the domestic courts.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complain under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention that they did not have a fair trial as the Istanbul Civil
Court of General Jurisdiction decided that all the financial rights
over the disputed artistic materials belong to H.E.A.
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 applicants'
complaints concern the national courts' evaluation of the facts and the
evidence and their interpretation of the domestic law. The istanbul
Civil Court of General Jurisdiction held under domestic law and the
contract between the first and second applicants and ilbas A.S. that
the financial rights over the artistic materials published between 1975
and 6 November 1989 belonged to H.E.A. The court also held that the
first and second applicants could continue to draw the same characters
for other magazines or newspapers but with different subjects and
stories. The Commission finds no evidence or basis on which to conclude
that the istanbul Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, in establishing
the facts or interpreting the domestic law, acted in an arbitrary or
unreasonable manner. Therefore, there is no appearance of a violation
of the applicants' rights under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention by the national courts.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as
being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
2. The applicants further complain that the length of the civil
proceedings between 1989 and 1994 exceeded the reasonable time
requirement under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.
The Commission notes that the period to be taken into
consideration began on 1 November 1989 when the entrepreneur, H.E.A.,
sued the applicants and ended on 8 March 1994 when the Court of
Cassation dismissed the applicants' request for rectification of its
decision. It therefore lasted approximately four years and four months.
The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of the length of
proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular
circumstances of the case and having regard to the criteria laid down
in the established case-law, in particular the complexity of the case
and the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities (Eur.
Court HR, Yagci and Sargin v. Turkey judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A
No. 319, p. 20, para. 59). Furthermore, the Convention organs also
consider it appropriate to make an overall assessment of the length
of proceedings in some cases (see e.g. Eur. Court HR, Cifola v. Italy
judgment of 27 February 1992, Series A no. 231, p. 9, para. 14).
The Commission notes that, in the present case, the applicants'
case was dealt with by two levels of jurisdiction in four years and
four months. Moreover, the applicants have not shown any substantial
periods of inactivity attributable to the judicial authorities. The
Commission therefore considers that the total period at issue does not
appear unreasonably long.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as
being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
3. The applicants also complain that the result of their trial
constituted a violation of their right to freedom of thought and
freedom of expression. They invoke Article 9 (Art. 9) of the
Convention.
The Commission recalls that Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention
primarily protects the sphere of personal and religious beliefs (No.
14331-14332/88, Dec. 8.9.89, D.R. 62, p. 309). In the present case, the
Commission finds no indication of interference with the applicants'
specific rights under Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention.
The Commission considers that the applicants' above complaint
rather falls to be considered under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the
Convention, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression, also
invoked by the applicants.
The Commission notes that this complaint concerns a dispute
between the applicants and a third person with regard to commercial
rights over some artistic materials which were designed by the first
and second applicants in a given period. The court expressly noted that
the applicants are not prohibited from continuing to design and publish
other artistic materials. Even assuming that there has been an
interference with their right to freedom of expression and thought to
the extent that they were prevented from using the materials which had
been created during the period of their contract with ilbas A.S., the
Commission considers that the interference at issue could reasonably
be considered necessary in a democratic society for the protection of
the rights of others, in particular one of the parties to a contract,
within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as
being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
4. The applicants finally complain of a violation of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention in that all the financial
rights over the artistic materials were given to H.E.A. by the domestic
courts.
The Commission recalls its case-law that intellectual property
is covered by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention
(see, for example, No. 21962/93, Dec. 11.1.94, D.R. 76, p. 157).
The Commission notes that the case concerns a commercial dispute
between private parties. The State's intervention in the case only
occurred through its courts. The Commission recalls that there is no
interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions when,
pursuant to the domestic law and a contract regulating the relationship
between the parties, a judge orders one party to that contract to
surrender a possession to another, unless it arbitrarily and unjustly
deprives that person of property in favour of another (see, mutatis
mutandis, No. 8588/79 & 8589/79, Dec. 12.10.82, D.R. 29, p. 69;
No. 10000/82, Dec. 4.7.83, D.R. 33, p. 247).
In the present case, the domestic courts interpreted the domestic
law in the light of the contract between the applicants and H.E.A. They
decided that the owner of the artistic materials, in particular, the
pictures, cartoons, films etc., which were published or which were
unpublished but held in the archives of the magazines "Girgir" and
"Firt", was H.E.A. Furthermore, the courts decided that the applicants
could continue to draw the same characters which they had drawn and
published in the two magazines during the period of their contract, but
in association with other subjects and stories, in other magazines or
newspapers.
The Commission therefore finds no element in the case which would
allow it to conclude that the courts acted in an arbitrary or
unreasonable manner. Accordingly, there is no shortcoming attributable
to the State in this respect either.
It follows that this part of the application must again be
rejected as being 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 J.-C. GEUS
Secretary President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy