BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Help]
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF KABASAKAL AND ATAR v. TURKEY
(Applications nos. 70084/01 and 70085/01)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
19 September 2006
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Kabasakal and Atar v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza,
President,
Mr J. Casadevall,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr R.
Türmen,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr L.
Garlicki,
Mr J. Šikuta, judges,
and Mr
T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 29 August 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The case originated in two applications (nos. 70084/01
and 70085/01) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two
Turkish nationals, Mr Selim Kabasakal and Mr Hasan Atar
(“the applicants”), on 13 December 2000.
- The applicants were represented by Mr H. Erdoğan
and Mr L. Kanat, lawyers practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government
(“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the
purposes of the proceedings before the Court.
- The applicants alleged that they were denied a fair
hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the
presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Court
which tried them and the non-communication of the written opinion of
the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation.
- The applications were allocated to the Fourth Section
of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court).
Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case
(Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided
in Rule 26 § 1.
- The Chamber decided to join the proceedings in the
applications (Rule 42 § 1).
- By a decision of 8 March 2005 the Court declared the
applications admissible.
- On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of
its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly
composed Fourth Section (Rule 52 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The applicants were born in 1979 and 1977 respectively
and were serving their prison sentences in Ordu prison at the time of
their applications to the Court.
- On 11 November 1998 the applicants were arrested and
taken into custody by police officers at the Anti-terror branch of
the Sivas Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an
illegal organisation, namely the TDP.
- On 18 November 1998 they were brought before a judge
who ordered their remand in custody.
- On 31 December 1998 the public prosecutor at the
Erzurum State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with the
latter charging the applicants under Article 168 § 2 of the
Criminal Code with membership of an illegal organisation.
- The first hearing, held before the Erzurum State
Security Court on 12 January 1999, in the applicants’ absence,
was taken up with procedural matters, such as the measures to be
taken for securing the presence of the accused.
- On 5 February 1999 the court heard the applicants. The
first applicant stated that he accepted in part the accusations
against him. In this respect he maintained, inter alia, that
he had wanted to join the armed forces of the TDP and that he was
apprehended, together with the co accused, on his way to the
rural area. The second applicant also stated, inter alia, that
he was apprehended, together with the co accused, before he had
joined the rural cadre of the organisation. He maintained that he was
a sympathiser of the organisation and not a member. Both applicants
also repudiated the statements they had given to the police, claiming
that they had been made under duress.
- In the next hearing held on 2 March 1999 the
applicants stated that they had nothing to say. On 23 March 1999 the
court heard a witness and one of the co accused. The witness
stated that he knew only one of the accused and that he had loaned
his car to him. The applicants maintained that, in view of the
judgment of the European Court on Human Rights concerning State
Security Courts, they were boycotting the court and were not going to
give any statements.
- In the next hearing held on 20 April 1999, the first
applicant submitted that he was neither a member nor a participant in
any activity of the organisation in question and that he had been
apprehended prior to attending a meeting with members of the
organisation.
- In the hearings held on 18 May 1999 and 15 June 1999
the second applicant stated that he had nothing to say. The first
applicant requested the rectification of some of his words contained
in the previous minutes of the hearings.
- In a hearing held on 13 July 1999 the civilian judge
who had been appointed to replace the military judge sat as a member
of the trial court for the first time. At this hearing and the next
one held on 10 August 1999, the court took some procedural decisions
and heard several of the co-accused, including the second applicant
who maintained that he had nothing to say.
- In a hearing held on 8 September 1999 the applicants
submitted their written submissions in which they challenged, in
particular, the veracity of their statements given in police custody.
- On 5 October 1999 before the court two persons filed
petitions to intervene as third-parties in the proceedings. The
applicants reiterated their previous submissions.
- At a hearing held on 12 October 1999 the court
accepted the request for the third-party intervention of two persons.
On the same day, the public prosecutor read out his observations on
the merits. The public prosecutor, relying on the submissions of the
applicants, the co-accused and the materials found during the
applicants’ arrest, requested that the applicants be convicted
and sentenced under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and
Article 5 of Law no. 3713. The applicants’ request for an
extension of time to submit their observations on the merits was
granted by the court.
- At each hearing, the court examined and dismissed the
requests of the applicants to be released.
- On 26 October 1999 the court heard the submissions of
the applicants on the merits. The applicants also submitted four
pages of written submissions. On the same day the Erzurum State
Security Court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced them
to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment.
- On 6 December 1999 the applicants appealed to the
Court of Cassation against the judgment of the State Security Court.
In their petition the applicants submitted arguments based on
domestic law and, in particular, challenged the veracity of their
statements to the police.
- Following a hearing held on 5 June 2000, the Court of
Cassation dismissed the applicants’ appeal and upheld the
judgment of the first instance court. This decision was
pronounced, in the absence of the applicants’ representative,
on 14 June 2000.
- On an unspecified date, the applicants were released
from prison.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the
material time are outlined in the following judgments:
Özel v. Turkey, no. 42739/98, §§ 20-21,
7 November 2002; Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no.
46221/99, §§ 54, ECHR 2005-...; and Göç
v. Turkey [GC], no. 36590/97, § 34, ECHR 2002 V.
- On 2 January 2003 Article 316 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure Law was amended to provide that the written opinion of the
principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation be notified to
the parties.
- By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the
Official journal on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were
abolished.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION
- The applicants complained that they were denied a fair
hearing on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench
of the Erzurum State Security Court which tried them. They further
submitted that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor
at the Court of Cassation was never served on them, thus depriving
them of the opportunity to put forward their counter-arguments. They
relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention.
- The Court considers that these complaints should be
examined from the standpoint of Article 6 § 1 alone, which
provides:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an
independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
A. Independence and impartiality of the Erzurum State
Security Court
- The Government maintained that, by Law no. 4388 of 18
June 1999, amendments were made to remove military judges from the
bench of the State Security Courts with a view to complying with the
requirements of the Convention. In this connection they pointed out
that, in the present case, the military judge sitting on the bench of
the Erzurum State Security Court had already been replaced by a
civilian judge before the applicants’ lawyer had put forward
their submissions on the merits of the case and that the applicants
were convicted by a State Security Court which was composed of three
civilian judges.
- The applicants refuted the Government’s
arguments. They maintained, in particular, that the Erzurum State
Security Court did not repeat the acts in which the military judge
had participated when the latter was replaced by a civilian judge.
- The Court has consistently held that certain aspects
of the status of military judges sitting as members of the State
Security Courts rendered their independence from the executive
questionable (see Incal v. Turkey, judgment of 9 June 1998,
Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 IV, § 68;
and Çıraklar v. Turkey, judgment of 28 October
1998, Reports 1998 VII, § 39). The Court also found
in Öcalan v. Turkey (cited above, §§ 114-115)
that when a military judge participated in one or more interlocutory
decisions that continued to remain in effect in the criminal
proceedings concerned, the military judge’s replacement by a
civilian judge in the course of those proceedings before the verdict
was delivered, failed to dissipate the applicant’s reasonably
held concern about that trial court’s independence and
impartiality, unless it was established that the procedure
subsequently followed in the state security court sufficiently
alleyed that concern.
- In the instant case, the Court notes that before his
replacement on 13 July 1999, the military judge was present at
one preliminary hearing and six hearings on the merits. At these
hearings, the domestic court heard the accused, including the
applicants, on several occasions as well as a witness, whose
testimony did not have any bearing on the applicants’ case. It
also took some minor procedural acts. However, no interlocutory
decisions of importance, in particular for the rights of the defence
of the applicants, were taken by the domestic court during these
hearings. In this connection, the Court notes that after the military
judge was replaced by a civilian judge, the domestic court held five
more hearings on the merits during which it accepted a third-party
intervention and again heard the accused, including the applicants, a
number of times. Furthermore, the final submissions of both the
public prosecutor and the applicants were read out before the court,
composed of three civilian judges. Therefore, taking into account, in
particular, the respective importance of the procedural acts which
took place before and after the replacement of the military judge,
the Court considers that none of the acts in which the military judge
participated in the instant case necessitated immediate renewal after
his replacement (see, mutatis mutandis, Ceylan v. Turkey,
(dec.), no. 68953/01, ECHR 2005-...).
- In view of the overall proceedings, the Court finds
that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the replacement of
the military judge before the end of the proceedings disposed of the
applicants’ reasonably held concern about the trial court’s
independence and impartiality (see mutatis mutandis,
Yılmaz v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 62230/00, 20 September
2005).
- There has accordingly been no violation of Article 6 §
1 of the Convention under this head.
B. Fairness of the proceedings
- The Government maintained that the written opinion of
the principal public prosecutor does not have a binding nature and
that it is generally in a form of a one-page document in which it is
briefly stated whether the judgment of the first instance court
should be upheld or quashed. They pointed out that since all
documents before the Court of Cassation can be examined by the
parties pursuant to Article 99 of the Law of Court of Cassation, the
applicants could have found out about the written opinion of the
principal public prosecutor via telephone, fax or in person. Finally,
they submitted that the written opinion of the principal public
prosecutor was read out during the hearing.
- The applicants disputed the Government’s
arguments. In particular, they claimed that they did not have
sufficient time to prepare their defence since they learned of the
contents of the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor
for the first time during the hearing held before the Court of
Cassation.
- The Court notes that it has already examined the same
grievance in the past and has found a violation of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention (see, in particular, Göç, cited
above, § 58; Abdullah Aydın v. Turkey (no. 2),
no. 63739/00, § 30, 10 November 2005; and Ayçoban
and Others v. Turkey, nos. 42208/02, 43491/02 and
43495/02, 22 December 2005).
- The Court has examined the present case and finds no
particular circumstances which would require it to depart from its
findings in the aforementioned cases.
- There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 §
1 of the Convention on account of the non-communication of the
written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of
Cassation.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The applicants claimed, in total, 30,000 euros (EUR)
for pecuniary and EUR 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
- The Government did not express an opinion.
- As regards the alleged pecuniary damage sustained by
the applicants, the Court notes that they failed to produce any
receipt or documents in support of their claim. The Court accordingly
dismisses it.
- The Court further considers that the finding of a
violation constitutes in itself sufficient compensation for any
non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants (see, mutatis
mutandis, Parsil v. Turkey, no. 39465/98, § 38,
26 April 2005; and Ayçoban and Others, cited above, §
32).
B. Costs and expenses
- The applicants claimed, in total, EUR 10,000 for legal
fees and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses incurred both before
the domestic courts and before the Court. They relied on the Ankara
Bar Association’s recommended minimum fees list. However, they
did not submit any receipt or documents in support of their claims.
- The Government did not express an opinion.
- According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant
is entitled to reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so far
as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily
incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. In the present case,
regard being had to the information in its possession and the above
criteria, the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses in the
domestic proceedings and considers it reasonable to award the sum of
EUR 1,000 for the proceedings before the Court.
C. Default interest
- The Court considers it appropriate that the default
interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European
Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Holds that there has been no violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the presence of
the military judge on the bench of the State Security Court during a
part of the proceedings against the applicants;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the non-communication to the
applicants of the principal public prosecutor’s observations
before the Court of Cassation;
- Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants,
within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final
in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention, EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) in respect of costs
and expenses, to be converted into the national currency of the
respondent State at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be
chargeable;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three
months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above
amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European
Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 September 2006,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
