SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 25620/08
Gülcan CEYRAN EKİNCİ
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 24 March 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Nebojša Vučinić, President,
Paul Lemmens,
Egidijus Kūris, judges,
and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 May 2008,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 2 June 2014 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Gülcan Ceyran Ekinci, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1981 and lives in İstanbul. She was represented before the Court by Mr İ. Ergün, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.
The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The application had been communicated to the Government.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner and executive director of two weekly newspapers published in Turkey: Sosyalizm İçin Kızıl Bayrak and Kızıl Bayrak.
On 9 November 2007 and 16 November 2007, the Istanbul Assize Court decided to suspend the publication and distribution of the abovementioned newspapers for a period of two weeks under section 6(5) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713), on the ground that the newspapers had published propaganda material in favour of an illegal organization. All copies of the relevant issues were seized. The applicant raised objections to the suspension orders but these objections were dismissed by the Istanbul Assize Court on 23 November 2007 and 3 December 2007. Neither the applicant nor his representative was permitted to participate in any of the proceedings held before the Istanbul Assize Court.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
A description of the relevant domestic law and practice in force at the relevant time may be found in the case of Ürper and Others v. Turkey (nos. 14526/07, 14747/07, 15022/07, 15737/07, 36137/07, 47245/07, 50371/07, 50372/07, and 54637/07, §§ 12-14, 20 October 2009).
Within the context of the “Judicial Reform Strategy Action Plan”, on 5 July 2012 a new law amending various laws with a view to rendering judicial services more effective and to suspending cases and sentences given in cases concerning crimes committed through the press and media (Law no. 6352) entered into force. Section 105 (2) of Law no. 6352 abolished section 6 (5) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the national courts’ decisions to suspend the publication and distribution of the newspapers Sosyalizm İçin Kızıl Bayrak amd Kızıl Bayrak, without holding an oral hearing or obtaining their defence submissions.
The applicant further complained under Article 10 of the Convention, that the national courts’ decisions under sections 6 and 7 of Law no. 3713 had constituted an unjustified interference with her freedom of expression.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the national courts’ decisions to suspend the publication and distribution of the newspapers Sosyalizm İçin Kızıl Bayrak and Kızıl Bayrak, without holding an oral hearing or obtaining their defence submissions. She relied on Article 6 of the Convention. The applicant further complained that the national courts’ decisions under sections 6 and 7 of Law no. 3713 had constituted an unjustified interference with her freedom of expression relying on the Article 10 of the Convention.
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 5 January 2015 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration[1] provided as follows:
“I declare that the Government of the Republic of Turkey offers to pay to the applicant, Ms Gülcan Ceyran Ekinci, the amount of 3 300 EUR (three thousand and three hundred euros), to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and 550 EUR (five hundred and fifty euros), to cover all costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant; which is considered to be appropriate in the light of the jurisprudence of the Court.
These sums, which are to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses will be converted into the national currrency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any further taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month-period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until the settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
The Government wishes to express that the interference in this case does not conform with the requirements of the Convention. In addition, Article 6 (5) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713), which constitutes the basis of the present application, was abolished by Section 105 (2) of Law no. 6352 (2 July 2012) in the light of the Court’s jurisprudence concerning the subject matter (see Ürper and others v. Turkey, nos. 14526/07, 14747/07, 15022/07, 15737/07, 36137/07, 47245/07, 50371/07, 50372/07 and 54637/07, § 52, 20 October 2009). The Government invites the Court to declare that it is not justified anymore to continue the examination of the application and to strike the case out of its lists in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.”
By a letter of 30 January 2015, the applicant indicated that she was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration could not be considered adequate as it did not compensate her loss.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI, see also, WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007, and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its case-law concerning complaints about the violation of one’s freedom of expression as a result of court orders suspending the publication of newspapers under section 6 (5) of Law no. 3713 (see Ürper and Others, cited above).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration and the fact that section 6 (5) of Law no. 3713 was abolished with effect from 2 July 2012, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 16 April 2015.
Abel CamposNebojša Vučinić
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[1]. Unofficial translation by the Registry.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy