Canevi and Others v. Turkey

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 69

November 2004

Canevi and Others v. Turkey - 40395/98

Judgment 10.11.2004 [Section I]

Article 6

Criminal proceedings

Article 6-1

Impartial tribunal

Independence and impartiality of State Security Court dealing with drugs offence: violation

Facts: In 1995 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court instituted criminal proceedings against the applicants for organized drug trafficking. In 1997 the State Security Court, which was composed of two civilian judges and a military judge, convicted the applicants. The Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.

Law (extract): “The Court notes that it has already examined complaints similar to those raised in the present case, in the Incal v. Turkey judgment (9 June 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV) and the Çıraklar v. Turkey judgment (28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VII). In particular, it noted that certain aspects of the status of military judges sitting in the State Security Courts raised doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the courts concerned… That being so, the Court’s task is to ascertain whether the manner in which the Istanbul State Security Court functioned infringed the applicants’ right to a fair trial, and in particular whether, viewed objectively, the applicants, who were being prosecuted for organised drug trafficking rather than for an offence directed against Turkey’s territorial or national integrity, the democratic system or State security, had a legitimate reason to fear that the court which tried them lacked independence and impartiality…

Having regard to its finding that certain aspects of the status of military judges sitting in the State Security Courts raise doubts as to their independence and impartiality, the Court considers that the defendants could legitimately have had misgivings as to the independence and impartiality of those courts. Such a situation seriously affects the confidence which the courts must inspire in a democratic society. In addition, the Court attaches great importance to the fact that a civilian had to appear before a court composed, if only in part, of members of the armed forces.

It follows that although the applicants appeared before the State Security Court for organised drug trafficking, they could have had legitimate reasons to fear that that court might allow itself to be unduly influenced by considerations which had nothing to do with the nature of the case. The applicants’ fears as to the court’s lack of independence and impartiality may be regarded as objectively justified.”

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy