Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)307[1]
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
49 cases against Turkey mainly concerning the failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion before the Court of Cassation and/or the lack of an oral hearing
(see details in Appendix)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);
Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;
Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases mainly concern the breach of the applicants’ right to a fair trial on account of the failure to communicate to the applicants the prosecutor’s opinion before the Court of Cassation and/or lack of an oral hearing in compensation proceedings (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1) and also, in some cases, late payment of compensation granted by domestic courts (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;
Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having satisfied itself that, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments where applicable (see details in Appendix),
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of
- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- general measures preventing similar violations;
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and
DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)307
Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments
in 49 cases against Turkey mainly concerning the lack of an oral hearing and the failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion before the Court of Cassation and/or the lack of an oral hearing in compensation proceedings
Introductory case summary
These cases concern the breach of the applicants’ right to a fair trial on account of the non-communication to the applicants of the written opinion submitted by the Principal Public Prosecutor to the Court of Cassation on the merits, and/or the absence of an oral hearing (violations of Article 6§1 (in some cases in combination with Article 6§3)).
The cases of Apaydın, Deniz Faruk, Göktaş Ali, Göktaş and, Kılıç and Korkut also concern the late payment of compensation granted by domestic courts (violations of Article 1, Protocol No. 1).
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Case and Application
Judgment of
Final on
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
Paid on
GÖÇ Mehmet 36590/97
11/07/02
11/07/02
--
2 000 EUR
1 862,03 EUR
3 862,03 EUR
09/10/2002
ÖZATA Zahide Songül
19578/02
20/10/2005
15/02/2006
--
--
1 000 EUR
1 000 EUR
15/08/2006
DİNDAR 32456/96
20/12/2005
20/03/2006
--
1 000 EUR
210 EUR
1 210 EUR
01/06/2006
AYÇOBAN and others
42208/02+
22/12/2005
22/03/2006
--
--
1 000 EUR
1 000 EUR
21/06/2006
DOĞAN Halis 75946/01
07/02/2006
07/05/2006
--
--
315 EUR
315 EUR
20/07/2006
IŞIK Mehmet Fehmi
62226/00
21/02/2006
21/05/2006
--
--
1 000 EUR
1 000 EUR
02/08/2006
TOSUN 4124/02
28/02/2006
28/05/2006
No just satisfaction awarded
HOCAOĞULLARI 77109/01
07/03/2006
07/06/2006
--
--
1 000 EUR
1 000 EUR
31/08/2006
ŞAHİN Çağdaş 28137/02
11/04/2006
11/07/2006
--
--
1 000 EUR
1 000 EUR
10/10/2006
KÖMÜRCÜ 77432/01
22/06/2006
22/09/2006
--
--
1 000 EUR
1 000 EUR
08/12/2006
KABASAKAL and ATAR
70084/01+
19/09/2006
19/12/2006
--
--
1 000 EUR
1 000 EUR
07/03/2007
SAĞIR
37562/02
19/10/2006
19/01/2007
--
--
1 500 EUR
1 500 EUR
19/04/2007
DOĞAN Halis No.3
4119/02
10/10/2006
10/01/2007
No just satisfaction awarded
MAÇİN No. 2
38282/02
24/10/2006
24/01/2007
--
--
1 500 EUR
1 500 EUR
20/04/2007
KOÇAK and others
23720/02+
21/12/2006
21/03/2007
--
--
1 000 EUR
1 000 EUR
26/03/2007[2]
KAYA Öner 9007/03
10/04/2007
10/07/2007
--
--
1 000 EUR
1 000 EUR
21/09/2007
TURĞAY 21085/02
12/04/2007
12/07/2007
No just satisfaction awarded
YALÇIN
8628/03
03/05/2007
03/08/2007
No just satisfaction awarded
SÖĞÜT 16593/03+
31/05/2007
31/08/2007
No just satisfaction awarded
KAYMAZ 6247/03
26/06/2007
26/09/2007
--
--
1 000 EUR
1 000 EUR
14/12/2007
DEMİREL Hünkar
10365/03
14/06/2007
14/09/2007
--
--
1 000 EUR
1 000 EUR
6/12/2007
ÖZMEN and others
9149/03
14/06/2007
14/09/2007
No just satisfaction awarded
YENİAY 14802/03
26/06/2007
26/09/2007
--
--
1 000 EUR
1 000 EUR
14/12/2007
YURTSEVER Mesut
42086/02
19/07/2007
19/10/2007
--
--
1 000 EUR
1 000 EUR
15/01/2008
MARTI
9709/03
19/07/2007
19/10/2007
--
--
1 000 EUR
1 000 EUR
16/01/2008
TAŞ Erdal No.5
29848/02
20/09/2007
20/12/2007
--
--
500 EUR
500 EUR
18/03/2008
TAŞ Erdal No.2
13021/02
20/09/2007
20/12/2007
--
--
500 EUR
500 EUR
18/03/2008
ÜNLÜ Suat 12458/03
15/01/2008
07/07/2008
No just satisfaction awarded
ARSLAN Abdülkerim
67136/01
20/09/2007
31/03/2008
No just satisfaction awarded
ÖLMEZ Cemal 7404/03
27/11/2007
27/02/2008
No just satisfaction awarded
YAYAN
9043/03
27/11/2007
27/02/2008
No just satisfaction awarded
GÖKTAŞ 66446/01
29/11/2007
29/02/2008
250 EUR
--
--
250 EUR
12/05/2008
TAN Mehmet Zülfi
31385/02
04/12/2007
04/03/2008
No just satisfaction awarded
APAYDIN
502/03
12/02/2008
12/05/2008
121 EUR
225 EUR
--
346 EUR
11/08/2008
DENİZ Faruk 19646/03
12/02/2008
12/05/2008
2 480 EUR
3 000 EUR
--
5 480 EUR
11/08/2008
KILIÇ and KORKUT
25949/03+
12/02/2008
12/05/2008
503 EUR
2 000 EUR
--
2 503 EUR
11/08/2008
GÖKTAŞ Ali 9323/03
12/02/2008
12/05/2008
3040 EUR
3 000 EUR
--
6 040 EUR
11/08/2008
KIZIL and others 1375/03
08/04/2008
08/07/2008
No just satisfaction awarded
TEKELİOĞLU 16139/03
27/05/2008
27/08/2008
--
--
1 000 EUR
1 000 EUR
19/11/2008
DEMİRCİ 21843/02
03/06/2008
03/09/2008
No just satisfaction awarded
BALABAN 4236/03
24/06/2008
24/09/2008
--
--
1 000 EUR
1 000 EUR
18/12/2008
UÇMA
15071/03
04/03/2008
04/06/2008
No just satisfaction awarded
KEŞ
17174/03
02/12/2008
02/03/2009
--
--
2 000 EUR
2 000 EUR 29/05/2009
DUMAN 17149/03
27/01/2009
27/04/2009
--
--
1 900 EUR
1 900EUR
06/07/2009
KARAKOÇ Şahin 19462/04
29/04/2008
29/07/2008
--
--
1 000 EUR
1 000 EUR 8/10/2008
DEMİREL Hünkar No.2
12166/03
20/10/2009
20/01/2010
--
--
1 000 EUR
1 000 EUR 30/04/2010
ARGA
27803/02
28/07/2009
28/10/2009
No just satisfaction awarded
ÇALIŞKAN 25506/03
20/10/2009
20/01/2010
No just satisfaction awarded
ŞENTÜRK 27577/04
24/11/2009
24/02/2010
No just satisfaction awarded
b) Individual measures
Taking into account the Committee’s Recommendation Rec(2000)2 and the particular circumstances of each case, it was considered that the violations found by the Court in these cases concern procedural shortcomings which were not serious enough to pose doubt as to the outcome of the domestic proceedings complained of and that the domestic decisions at issue are not contrary to the Convention with respect to the merits.
The just satisfaction provided in the European Court’s judgments has been paid to the applicants.
Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.
II.General measures
- Concerning the issue of the non-communication of the Public Prosecutor’s opinion, Article 297 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, adopted on 17/12/2004 and entered into force on 01/06/2005, requires notification of written opinions of the Principle Public Prosecutor to parties by the competent chamber of the Court of Cassation.
- As far as the absence of a hearing in compensation proceedings is concerned, Article 142, paragraph 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the competent court shall render its decision only after hearing a plaintiff, the public prosecutor and the representative of the Treasury.
- As far as the late payment of compensation granted by the domestic courts (Apaydın, Deniz Faruk, Göktaş Ali, Göktaş, and Kılıç and Korkut cases) is concerned, the measures had already been taken to prevent new violations of the same kind (see Resolutions ResDH(2001)70 and ResDH(2001)71 in the cases Aka and Akkuş against Turkey, respectively), in particular through the entry into force on 1 January 2000 of Law No. 4489, which brought the statutory rate of default interest into line with the annual rediscount rate applied by the Turkish Central Bank to short-term debts (the latter rate is fixed and permanently reviewed in accordance with the country’s inflation rate).
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violations found by the Court in these cases, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Turkey has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers by tacit procedure in accordance with the decision taken at the 1128th meeting (December 2011) under item F.
[2] The applicants did not claim the payment of default interest in view of the minimal sum involved.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy