Ministers’ Deputies
Agenda

CM/Del/OJ/DH(2009)1059 Section 5 PUBLIC 19 June 2009

———————————————

1059th meeting (DH), 2-4 and 5 (morning) June 2009

- Annotated Agenda1
- Decisions

Section 5

Public information version

——————————————

SECTION 5 - SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED

Action

The Deputies are invited to supervise progress in the adoption of general measures aiming at preventing further similar violations to those found by the Court in the following cases.

SUB-SECTION 5.1 – LEGISLATIVE AND/OR REGULATORY CHANGES

- 20 cases against Finland

- Cases of length of judicial proceedings
48339/99 Kangasluoma, judgment of 20/01/2004, final on 14/06/2004
2511/02 Aho, judgment of 16/10/2007, final on 16/01/2008
36288/97 Fryckman, judgment of 10/10/2006, final on 10/01/2007
14724/02 Hagert, judgment of 17/01/2006, final on 17/04/2006
64436/01 Kajas, judgment of 07/03/2006, final on 07/06/2006
26890/95 Kukkola, judgment of 15/11/2005, final on 15/02/2006
34147/96 Lehtinen, judgment of 13/09/2005, final on 13/12/2005
43160/98 Lehtinen Toive, judgment of 22/05/2007, final on 22/08/2007
41585/98 Lehtinen No. 2, judgment of 08/06/2006, final on 08/09/2006
11704/03 Lehtonen, judgment of 13/06/2006, final on 13/09/2006
77138/01 Mattila, judgment of 23/05/2006, final on 23/08/2006
10615/03 Molander, judgment of 07/11/2006, final on 07/02/2007
13102/03 Narinen No. 2, judgment of 06/03/2007, final on 06/06/2007
25072/02 Riihikallio and others, judgment of 31/05/2007, final on 12/11/2007
66899/01 Ruoho, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006
27744/95 T. and others, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006
38581/97 T.K. and S.E., judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 31/08/2005
61222/00 Uoti, judgment of 09/01/2007, final on 09/04/2007 and of 13/01/2009, final on 13/04/2009
10736/03 Väänänen, judgment of 22/05/2007, final on 24/09/2007
63235/00 Vilho Eskelinen and others, judgment of 19/04/2007 - Grand Chamber
These cases concern the excessive length of civil and criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).
Several cases also concern the absence of an effective remedy enabling the applicants to complain about the length of the proceedings (violation of Article 13).
Individual measures: Acceleration of proceedings, if still pending (one set of proceedings in the Lehtinen Toive case). The other sets of proceedings are closed.
General measures:
1) Violation of Article 6: The Finnish authorities confirmed that the judgments of the European Court had been translated, published on Finlex and widely disseminated with a covering letter to various authorities concerned (for example to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Chancellor of Justice, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the appeal courts and district courts concerned, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of the Interior and the National Bureau of Investigation).
At the bilateral level, the authorities declared that the following measures had been taken so far: interaction among police, prosecutor and the court to reduce the length of proceedings, inter alia through common database system; training of judges; improvement of quality of work of the courts.
Assessment: Taking into account the direct effect given by the national courts to the judgments of the European Court, these measures would appear to be sufficient with a view to executing these judgments. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Justice has set up a working group to study measures to reduce the length of judicial proceedings. This working group handed over its report on 14/02/2007. It proposes that proceedings may be accelerated inter alia by making the supervision of the overall length of proceedings more efficient, by making the provisions on the courts’ jurisdiction more flexible, by creating more varied compositions of chambers and by making courts' internal working methods and direction more efficient.
Information is awaited on the follow-up given to these proposals.
2) Violation of Article 13: The Ministry of Justice has set up a working group to study how an effective remedy in cases of excessive length of proceedings could be introduced into the Finnish legal system. The working group delivered its conclusions on 19/01/2007. It proposes that the excessive length of proceedings be compensated by monetary compensation also covering non-pecuniary damages. As a preventive measure, applicants could also file a complaint to a higher court about the length of civil, criminal or administrative proceedings. The conclusions of the working group were being commented by several authorities and it was foreseen that the government submit the proposal of a draft law during autumn 2007.

Information is awaited on the follow-up given to the above-mentioned proposals, as well as on the timetable for the adoption of the draft law.

The Deputies,
1. took note with interest of the information concerning the adoption of the law introducing a remedy aimed at accelerating proceedings and allowing compensation in case of excessive length of proceedings, as well as the other ongoing measures aimed at reducing the length of proceedings;
2. encouraged the Finnish authorities to pursue their commitment to reducing the length of domestic judicial proceedings;
3. invited the Finnish authorities to submit to the Committee of Ministers more detailed information on the general measures envisaged with a view to reducing the length of proceedings and on the scope of the new remedy;
4. decided to resume consideration of these items at the latest at their 1072nd meeting (December 2009) (DH), in the light of further information to be provided on individual and general measures and, if appropriate, in the light of a draft interim resolution taking stock of the measures adopted as well as of the measures still expected.

- 2 cases against the Netherlands

50210/99 Doerga, judgment of 27/04/2004, final on 27/07/2004
The case concerns the recording by prison authorities of telephone conversations of the applicant, a prisoner at the time, after he had given the police a false tip-off about an alleged escape attempt by other detainees (violation of Article 8). The tapes were kept for the purposes of an ongoing investigation. Subsequently the applicant was convicted and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment in a case relating to a bomb explosion in October 1995, wounding the applicant's ex-partner and her son.
The European Court stated that although it accepted that it may be necessary to monitor detainees' contacts with the outside world (including contacts by telephone), the Netherlands rules concerning such monitoring were not sufficiently clear and detailed.
Individual measures: The recordings concerned and the transcripts thereof have been destroyed and are thus no longer in the possession of the Netherlands authorities.
Assessment: No further individual measure appears necessary.
General measures: Following the European Court’s judgment, a draft regulation concerning the recording of prisoners’ telephone conversations in judicial institutions (AmvB Toezicht telefoongesprekken in justitiële inrichtingen) has been prepared. In June 2008, the consultation period ended and a more explicit legal basis for the regulation was adopted (draft regulation 31386, Wet wijziging van het Wetboek van Strafrecht, het Wetboek van Strafvordering en enkele aanverwante wetten in verband met de strafbaarstelling van het deelnemen en meewerken aan training voor terrorisme, uitbreiding van de mogelijkheden van ontzetting uit het beroep als bijkomende straf en enkele andere wijzigingen). The draft regulation concerning the supervision of conversations in judicial institutions will be sent to the Officials' Commission (voorportaal) on 11/06/2009. It will then be sent to the Council of Ministers and then, in July 2009, to the Council of State. It should take approximately two months to obtain its advice and, if necessary, incorporate it into the draft, before it can be submitted to Parliament.
Information is awaited on a time-frame for the adoption of the regulation. The text of the draft regulation would be appreciated.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at the latest at their 1st DH meeting in 2010 in the light of information to be provided on general measures.

64752/01 Voskuil, judgment of 22/11/2007, final on 22/02/2008
This case concerns a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression of the applicant, a journalist. He had written articles concerning the way in which a police operation had been conducted against arms smugglers. He was subsequently summoned to appear as a witness in criminal proceedings against the smugglers in September 2000 and was detained for 17 days to compel him to reveal his sources.
The European Court found that the reasons put forward by the government were first, to ensure a fair trial for the accused and secondly to defend the integrity of the police. It considered the first argument to be irrelevant as the domestic court had been able to obtain the requisite evidence through the testimony of other witnesses in the absence of information from the applicant. As to the second reason, the European Court took the view that in a democratic state governed by the rule of law, the use of improper methods by a public authority was precisely the kind of issue about which the public had the right to be informed. The Court held that the interest of democratic society in a free press prevailed over the government’s interest in knowing the applicant’s source (violation of Article 10).
The case also concerns the unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention in that he had only been provided with a written copy of his detention order after three days, in violation of the procedure prescribed by domestic law (violation of Article 5§1).
Individual Measures: The applicant has been released and has made no claim for just satisfaction.
Assessment: no further individual measure seems necessary.
General Measures:
1) Violation of Article 5§1: Article 224 of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure provides that detention orders are notified in writing within twenty-four hours. This procedure was not followed in this case. The violation seems to be an isolated incident.
2) Violation of Article 10: The European Court found that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression had a basis in law (Article 294§1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) but that it was disproportionate.
• Information provided by the Netherlands authorities (letter of 09/04/2009): Following the European Court’s judgment, a draft law was prepared to regulate journalists’ right not to disclose their source of information. The consultation period ended on 30/01/2009 and adjustments have been made according to the suggestions by the consulted organisations before it was sent to the Officials’ Commission (voorportaal) on 23/04/2009. Thereafter it will be sent to the Council of Ministers and then to the Council of State in mid-May 2009. It will probably be submitted to Parliament in September 2009.
3) Publication and dissemination: The European Court’s judgment was published in law journals (NJCM-Bulletin 2008, pp. 75-89; Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 2008, 216; Nederlands Juristenblad 2008, pp. 102-104). It was disseminated via the Council for the Judiciary.
Information is awaited on the legislative progress of the draft law: the text of the draft law would be useful.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their 1st DH meeting in 2010 in the light of further information to be provided on general measures, namely the new draft law and the timeframe for its adoption.

- 1 case against Portugal

64330/01 Antunes Rocha, judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 12/10/20052

- 1 case against the Russian Federation

58973/00 Rakevich, judgment of 28/10/03, final on 24/03/043

- 1 case against Sweden

53507/99 Swedish transport workers union, judgment of 18/07/2006, final on 18/10/2006 - Striking-out4

- 100 cases against Turkey

29865/96 Ünal Tekeli, judgment of 16/11/2004, final on 16/02/2005
The case concerns the domestic courts' refusal in 1995 to allow the applicant to have only her maiden name registered after her marriage. This decision was taken on the grounds of Article 153 of the Turkish Civil Code which obliged married women to bear their husband's name throughout their married life. This provision was amended in 1997 to allow married women to put their maiden name in front of their husband's surname. The new Civil Code, enacted in November 2001, maintained this rule (new Article 187).
The European Court noted, with reference to Committee of Ministers' Resolution (78) 37 on the equality of spouses in civil law and Recommendation R (85) 2 on legal protection against sex discrimination, that the advancement of the equality of the sexes was today a major goal in the member states of the Council of Europe. Given this advancement and the importance of the principle of non-discrimination, the Court noted that states may not impose on married women the tradition of reflecting family unity through the husband's name. Consequently, the Court considered that the obligation on married women, in the name of family unity, to bear their husband's surname - even if they may put their maiden name in front of it - provided no objective and reasonable justification for the gender-based difference in treatment (violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8).
Individual measures: Following the judgment of the European Court, the Ministry of the Interior issued an identity card for the applicant under her maiden name.
General measures:
Information provided by the Turkish authorities (21/06/2005):
- On 11/06/1985, Turkey ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which became directly applicable in domestic law after the amendment made to Article 90 of the Constitution in May 2004 providing supremacy to Turkey's obligations in the field of human rights over domestic law. States Parties to the Convention are under an obligation to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations, in particular the same personal rights as husband and wife, including the right to choose a family name, a profession and an occupation (Article 16 (g) of the Convention).
- The Ministry of Justice is preparing a draft law which is destined to amend Article 187 of the Civil Code in order to ensure that future violations of the same kind will be avoided. At the 997th meeting (June 2007) the Turkish authorities declared that the preparatory work would be finalised for the adoption of this draft law. However, they did not provide the Committee with a time-table.
- The judgment of the European Court was published on the Bulletin of Ministry of Justice of 17/05/2005, No. 275, p. 39. At the 928th meeting (June 2005) the Turkish authorities also informed the Committee that the judgment had received wide public attention in Turkey and hoped that similar violations would be avoided in the future.
On 11/04/2006 the Turkish authorities informed the Secretariat that the issue of an identity card for the applicant with her maiden name on it constituted a good example of the direct effect given by the executive authorities to the Convention and to the case-law of the European Court notwithstanding the impugned legislation.
Information is awaited on the progress of the draft law destined to amend Article 187.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their 1072nd meeting (1-3 and 4 (morning) December 2009) (DH), in the light of information to be provided on general measures, namely the adoption of the draft law destined to amend Article 187 of the Civil Code.

59741/00 Aksoy (Eroğlu), judgment of 31/10/2006, final on 31/01/20075
59739/00 Güner Çorum, judgment of 31/10/2006, final on 31/01/2007
60366/00 Kahraman, judgment of 31/10/2006, final on 31/01/2007

- 96 cases of length of judicial proceedings
(See Appendix for the list of cases in the Ormancı group)
a. Cases before administrative courts
These cases concern the excessive length of compensation proceedings before administrative courts.
Some of these cases particularly concern loss sustained as a result of the death of applicants' relatives during clashes involving the security forces (violations of Article 6§1).
The cases of Olcar and Şenol Uluslararası Nakliyat concern the absence of any remedy in Turkish law by which the applicants might have complained of the length of proceedings (violations of Article 13).
Individual measures: No proceedings pending, except in the cases of Musluoğlu, Olcar, Özel Mehmet, Yiğit, Yengin and Genç Hasan. The authorities indicated on 12/03/2008 that the Yiğit case was pending before Mardin Administrative Court and the Yengin case was pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.
Information is awaited on the acceleration of the proceedings if they are still pending.
General measures: In reply to the Secretariat's initial-phase letter of 02/06/2005 the Turkish authorities gave information on 18/07/2005, 01/08/2005 and 29/09/2005 on measures envisaged to prevent lengthy proceedings before administrative courts.
- A new Code of Administrative Procedure is being drafted with a view to decreasing the workload of administrative courts. It also lays down procedures for resolving disputes before the trial stage and for friendly settlements and envisages a number of amendments with the aim of reducing the length of proceedings before administrative courts. These amendments were submitted to the office of the Prime Minister on 23/05/2005.
- Preparations are under way for the adoption of a draft law on the establishment of the Council of Scrutiny of Public Works, which will provide that all disputes between the administration and citizens regarding public works will first be examined by an Ombudsman before being brought before the administrative authorities or the administrative courts.
On 13/03/08, the authorities further indicated that the draft had been passed into law on 28/09/06. However, a challenge was made before the Constitutional Court, which suspended application of the law on 27/06/06, pending its examination.
- The Law on the Council of State (Law No: 2575) was amended by Law No. 5183 of 02/06/2004 whereby a new Chamber (the 13th Chamber) was established and the functions and jurisdictions of the other Chambers were revised with the aim of reducing the length of proceedings before the Council of State.
- The judgment in the case of Ormancı and others was published in the Bulletin of the Ministry of Justice (No.74).
Information is awaited on the adoption of these draft laws and their texts, as well as the outcome of the challenge before the Constitutional Court.

b. Cases before civil courts
These cases concern the excessive length of civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). The case of Çolak also concerns a violation of the applicants' right to respect for their private life due to the courts' inability to decide the paternity question promptly or to oblige the alleged father to take a DNA test (violation of Article 8).
Lastly, the cases of Bahçekaya, Çolak, Tamar and Yıldız and others concern the absence of any remedy in Turkish law by which the applicants might have complained of the length of proceedings (violation of Article 13).
Individual measures: No proceedings are pending, except in the cases of Ayral, Yıldırım and others, and Tosun. In the case of Tosun, the first-instance court gave its judgment on 17/06/2007.
Information is awaited as to whether cassation proceedings are pending. Information is also awaited on the acceleration of the proceedings in the cases of of Ayral, and Yıldırım and others if they are still pending.
General measures: In reply to the Secretariat's initial-phase letter of 02/06/2005 the Turkish authorities submitted the following information on 15/09/2005:
- According to the statistics provided by the Ministry of Justice, the average length of civil proceedings in Turkey is 177 days before first-instance courts and 86 days before the Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation.
- The competence and jurisdiction of Civil and Criminal Courts of First Instance were reorganised and Regional Courts were established with the coming into force of Law No. 5235 of 26/09/2004.

- A number of new courts have recently been established in Turkey, namely 823 Civil Peace Courts, 960 Civil Courts of First Instance, 704 Cadastral Courts, 174 Enforcement Courts, 98 Labour Courts, 149 Family Courts, 54 Commercial Courts, 20 Consumer Rights Courts, 4 Intellectual Property Rights Courts, 19 Juvenile Courts and 1 Maritime Court.
- A new Law amending the Code of Civil Procedure is being drafted in order to prevent lengthy proceedings before civil courts. On 13/03/08, the authorities indicated that the preparatory work on this new law continued.
Information is awaited on the adoption of this draft law as well as on publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court, in particular to family courts and the Court of Cassation.

c. Case before labour courts
This case concerns the excessive length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the Istanbul Labour Law Court (the proceedings began in January 1994 and ended in June 1999) (violation of Article 6§1).
Individual measures: No proceedings are pending, except in the case of Karyağdı.
Information is awaited on the acceleration of the proceedings if they are still pending.
General measures: The Secretariat wrote to the Turkish authorities on 03/04/2006 requesting information on the measures taken or envisaged. On 13/03/08, the authorities indicated that procedure before labour courts was governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the planned changes in the draft Code of Civil Procedure, once put into place, should reduce the length of proceedings before these courts.

d. Cases before criminal courts
These cases concern excessive length of proceedings before criminal courts (violations of Article 6§1). The case of Kahraman Yılmaz and others presents similarities to the Şahiner group of cases, except the compensation proceedings regarding the applicant Ahmet Cihan.
The case İletmiş also concerns the unjustified interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private and family life as a result of the confiscation of his passport while the lengthy criminal proceedings were pending against him (violation of Article 8).
The cases of Vurankaya, Samsa, Başaran, and Şahin Volkan concern the absence of any remedy in Turkish law by which the applicants might have complained of the length of proceedings (violation of Article 13).
Individual measures: No proceedings are pending, except in the cases of Akkurt Şakir, Döner Hasan, Özcan, Uğuz, Uysal and Osal, Vurankaya, Izmirli, Yıldız and Esen Ali.
Information is awaited on the acceleration of these proceedings if they are still pending.
General measures:
Information provided by the Turkish authorities (13/03/2008): The authorities pointed to the new Code of Criminal Procedure which introduced new mechanisms to accelerate proceedings. The principal changes in this regard include:
(i) notifications are now made directly by the courts. The trial judge shall directly notify the parties to a case as well as third parties;
(ii) the new Code addresses summonsing of witnesses to bring it in line with the Convention’s requirements. To speed up the hearing of witnesses, summonses may now be issued by telephone, telegram, fax or e-mail;
(iii) jurisdictional decisions of criminal courts may now be appealed before regional courts;
(iv) a maximum period is introduced for detention pending trial, to encourage judges to move towards a verdict more speedily;
(v) grounds for cassation applications are set down in more detail and in a more restrictive manner.
These measures are currently being assessed by the Secretariat. For the measures taken in the case of İletmis concerning the violation of Article 8 of the Convention, see the Annotated Agenda at the 982nd meeting (December 2006, section 4.2).

e. Cases before commercial and consumers' courts
Individual measures: None (no proceedings pending).
General measures: On 13/03/08, the authorities indicated that procedure before commercial and consumers’ courts was governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the planned changes in the draft Code of Civil Procedure, once put into place, should reduce the length of proceedings before these courts.

f. Cases before cadastre courts
Individual measures: No proceedings are pending, except in the cases of Talipoğlu Mehmet Ali, Uysal, Doğan Naime and others, and Sümer Meşrure.
Information is awaited on the acceleration of these proceedings if they are still pending.
General measures: On 13/03/08, the authorities indicated that procedure before cadastre courts was governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the planned changes in the draft Code of Civil Procedure, once put into place, should reduce the length of proceedings before these courts.

g. Cases before Military Courts
Individual measures: The proceedings are still pending in the case of Özel and others.
Information is awaited on the acceleration of the proceedings if they are still pending.
General measures: None, there does not seem to be a systemic problem of excessive length of proceedings before Military Courts in Turkey.
In the context of all the above cases, the attention of the authorities is drawn to the fact that Turkish law still provides no effective remedy in respect of excessive length of proceedings. Measures in this respect could be envisaged.
It should be noted that in the case of Bahçekaya the European Court observed that “the Turkish legal system does not provide any remedy to accelerate the proceedings or to provide litigants with adequate redress for the delays that have already occurred. In the present case, the applicant did not have personal rights to compel any other authority to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction over the trial court to expedite the proceedings”.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of these items at the latest at their 1072nd meeting (1-3 and 4 (morning) December 2009) (DH), in the light of information to be provided on individual measures, namely the acceleration of the proceedings in the cases of Musluoğlu, Olcar, Özel Mehmet, Yiğit, Yengin, Genç Hasan, Ayral, Yıldırım and others, Tosun, Doğan Naime and others, Karyağdı, Akkurt Şakir, Döner Hasan, Özcan, Uğuz, Uysal and Osal, Vurankaya, Izmirli, Yıldız and Esen Ali, Talipoğlu Mehmet Ali, Uysal, and Sümer Meşrure, Özel and others,and on general measures, namely:
- the adoption of the draft laws to prevent excessive length of proceedings before administrative and civil courts;
- measures to provide effective remedies for excessive length of proceedings before all courts.

- 1 case against Ukraine

67531/01 Gorshkov, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/20066

SUB-SECTION 5.2 – CHANGES OF COURTS’ CASE-LAW OR OF ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE

- 75 cases against Turkey

- 75 cases of length of detention on remand and of length of criminal proceedings
(See Appendix for the list of cases in the Demirel group)
These cases primarily concern the excessive length of the applicants' detention on remand, the impossibility for the applicants to have the lawfulness of their detention decided speedily by a court, and the absence of a right to compensation for their unlawful detention on remand (violations of Articles 5§3, 5§4 an 5§5). In this respect, the European Court found that the relevant judicial decisions, in only using general wording, such as “taking into account the nature of the crime and the state of evidence” did not provide sufficient information as to the reasons justifying the applicants' being kept in detention.
Many of these cases further concern the excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular before state security courts (violations of Article 6§1).
The following cases also concern other violations, namely:
- The cases of Tekin and Baltaş and Esen Hüseyin concern failure to communicate to them the prosecutor's opinion (violations of Article 6§1);
- The cases of Demirel, Sevgin and İnce and Temel and Taşkın concern the lack of independence and impartiality of the state security courts which convicted them (violations of Article 6§1);
- Ill-treatment and lack of an effective remedy in the cases of Tosun Veli and Esen Hüseyin (violations of Articles 3 and 13).
- Lack of effective remedy in the cases of Yaşar Mahmut, Tamamboğa and Gül (violation of Article 13).
- The case of Tandoğan also conserns the continued detention of the applicant following the release order (violation of Article 5§1).
Individual measures:
1) Acceleration of the pending proceedings in the following cases:
Information provided by the Turkish authorities (19/06/2007):
- Dereci: The Istanbul Assize Court gave a judgment on 27/12/2006 and convicted the applicant. The applicant appealed the judgment and the proceedings are currently pending
- Kalay: The proceedings are still pending and the next hearing had been scheduled for 10/09/2007;
- Ağdaş Çetin: The Istanbul Assize Court gave a judgment on 07/03/2007 and convicted the applicant. The applicant appealed the judgment and the proceedings are currently pending;
- Esen Hüseyin and Vayiç: The joint proceedings against these applicants are still pending and a hearing had been scheduled for 12/09/2007;
- Gökçe and Demirel: The joint proceedings against these applicants are still pending and a hearing had been scheduled for 13/07/2007;
- Töre No. 2: Proceedings are still pending;
- Karagöz: Proceedings are still pending before the İstanbul Assize Court.
Information is needed on the status of these cases that are still pending, and the other cases, which were still pending at the time that the European Court delivered its judgments, namely, Aydın Remzi, Bağrıyanık, Dursun, Kaçar Murat, Karakaş, Katar and others (for Katar only), Öcalan Kamil, Pakkan, Polat Cengiz, Rüzgar Hasan, Solmaz, Tamcan, Tandoğan, Temel and Taşkın, Tutar İskender, Yakışan, Yurt, Yıldız Ercüment, Kama,. .
2) Taciroğlu case: The applicant's conviction was quashed by a decision of the Court of Cassation of April 2005. The applicant is thus once again detained on remand
Are awaited: copies of the decisions of domestic courts ordering the applicant's detention on remand.
3) Cases of Baltacı, Aydın Remzi, and Tosun Veli, Çarkçı, Karakaş, Pakkan, Tutar İskender and Yakışan: The applicants, except Mr Baltacı, are currently detained on remand.
On 7/03/2008, the Turkish authorities indicated that Mr. Baltacı’s conviction had been upheld by the Court of Cassation and the proceedings were concluded.
Information is urgently awaited concerning the detention status of the applicants and outcome of the proceedings pending against the applicants.
General measures:

    1) Violations of Article 5§§3, 4 and 5 on account of excessive length of detention on remand:

• Information provided by the Turkish authorities: The Code of Criminal Procedure, which came into force on 01/06/2005, provides for the following safeguards to avoid future violations of the same kind:

a) Decisions to detain on remand or to extend such detention, as well as those denying requests for release, must be duly reasoned on both legal and factual grounds. The contents of such decisions must be communicated orally to the accused or suspects. A written copy of the decision must also be forwarded to the accused or suspect.
b) A maximum time-limit for the length of detention on remand is set (two years in the case of offences within the jurisdiction of the Assize Courts, which may be extended for a maximum of three years; one year in the case of other offences, with the possibility of extension for six months).
c) A judge or a court shall decide whether or not the conditions for the detention on remand still exist at every hearing or between two consecutive hearings, if necessary, or in any event every 30 days.
d) Anyone who claims that he or she has been unlawfully detained on remand or whose detention on remand has been unlawfully extended may claim damages for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages incurred.
On 21/08/2007, Turkish authorities provided 18 examples of decisions given by assize courts and other criminal courts in the last two years since the legislative amendments. In most of these decisions, the courts released the detained accused on a number of grounds such as the fact that most of the evidence has already been gathered; that the accused has already been on remand for a period of time; that the evidence in the record might indicate a crime less severe than the charges; that mitigating factors might apply in the event of conviction, or deteriorating health of the accused. In some cases, the accused were also released on bail.
In one case dealing with organised crime, the court denied release requests on the ground that the alleged crimes were of a serious and organised nature, that the evidence was not fully gathered, hence potential evidence suppression attempts and the likelihood of absconding. In another case involving a terrorist organisation, an assize court ordered the defendants' continued detention on the ground of the nature of the charges being organised crime, the risk of absconding, the evidence yet to be gathered, and the fact that the defendants had been in detention for a relatively short period of time.
• Although these examples demonstrate a positive change in court practice, further examples are expected for a more conclusive evaluation.
2) Violations of Article 6§1:
- Excessive length of criminal proceedings: The Committee is examining the measures taken in the Ormancı group (43647/98, Section 5.1). For this group, the Committee is expecting information on the adoption of draft laws which are intended to prevent lengthy proceedings as well as on the introduction of effective domestic remedies in this respect.
It should further be noted that state security courts were abolished by the constitutional amendments of May 2004.
- Independence and impartiality of state security courts: See, Çıraklar against Turkey (judgment of 28/10/1998) which was closed by final resolution DH(99)555 following the adoption of general measures by the Turkish authorities.
- Non-communication of the Public Prosecutor's written observation: a new provision was added by Law No. 4778 of January 2003 to Article 316 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring notification of written opinions of the Principal Public Prosecutor to parties by the competent chamber of the Court of Cassation. This provision was subsequently included in Article 297 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure adopted on 17/12/2004, which entered into force on 01/06/2005.
3) Violations of Articles 3 and 13 (Ill-treatment and lack of an effective remedy): Measures are being examined in the context of the actions of security forces group against Turkey (see Aksoy group, 21987/93, 1065th meeting, September 2009).
4) Dissemination of the judgments of the European Court: the Demirel judgment has been translated into Turkish and circulated to the relevant authorities, including the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Interior.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of these items at the latest at their 1072nd meeting (1-3 and 4 (morning) December 2009) (DH), to supervise the progress made in the adoption of general measures as well as urgent individual measures in certain cases.

SUB-SECTION 5.3 – PUBLICATION / DISSEMINATION

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of these items at their 1065th meeting (15-16 September 2009) (DH), in the light of information to be provided on general measures, namely publication and dissemination of the European Court's judgments.

Section 5.3a
Cases in which supervision of measures concerning publications and disseminations has been taking place for less than a year

- 2 cases against Austria

1638/03 Maslov, judgment of 23/06/2008 – Grand Chamber
39120/03 Bartenbach, judgment of 20/03/2008, final on 20/06/2008

- 2 cases against Bulgaria

39272/98 M.C., judgment of 04/12/03, final on 04/03/04
66535/01 Kroushev, judgment of 03/07/2008, final on 03/10/2008

- 1 case against the Czech Republic

35450/04 Melich and Beck, judgment of 24/07/2008, final on 24/10/2008

- 2 cases against Greece

25145/05 Vasilakis, judgment of 17/01/2008, final on 17/04/2008

- Case concerning freedom of expression
15909/06 I Avgi Publishing and Press Agency S.A. and Karis, judgment of 05/06/2008, final on 05/09/2008

- 1 case against Italy

- Case concerning freedom of expression
42211/07 Riolo, judgment of 17/07/2008, final on 17/10/2008

- 1 case against Latvia

30273/03 Perry, judgment of 08/11/2007, final on 02/06/2008

- 1 case against Moldova

7170/02 Grădinar, judgment of 08/04/2008, final on 08/07/2008

- 1 case against Poland

- Case concerning freedom of expression
57659/00 Kita, judgment of 08/07/2008, final on 08/10/2008

- 4 cases against Romania

35097/02 Bozgan, judgment of 11/10/2007, final on 11/01/2008
15741/03 Visan, judgment of 24/04/2008, final on 24/07/2008

      - Cases concerning the impossibility to obtain possession of a land or equivalent compensation, due to the existence of a second property title delivered to third persons under Law No. 18/1991

20294/02 Drăculet, judgment of 06/12/2007, final on 31/03/2008 and of 05/02/2009, final on 05/05/2009
31005/03 Ioan, judgment of 01/07/2008, final on 01/12/2008

- 5 cases against Turkey

6489/03 Karaman, judgment of 15/01/2008, final on 15/04/2008
37546/02 Keçecioğlu and others, judgment of 08/04/2008, final on 08/07/2008
49548/99 Baş, judgment of 24/06/2008, final on 24/09/2008
34503/97 Demir and Baykara, judgment of 12/11/2008 – Grand Chamber

      - Case concerning the right to a fair hearing (re-examination without valid reason of issues which had already been the subject of a final decision)

10332/02+ Gög, Kolsuzoğlu and Agbayır, judgment of 24/01/2008, final on 24/04/2008

Section 5.3b
Cases in which supervision of measures concerning publications and disseminations has been taking place for more than a year

- 1 case against Andorra

69498/01 Pla and Puncernau, judgment of 13/07/2004, final on 15/12/2004 and of 10/10/2004 (Article 41) - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Austria

45983/99 Kaplan, judgment of 18/01/2007, final on 18/04/2007

- 7 cases against Bulgaria

56272/00 Kayadjieva, judgment of 28/09/2006, final on 28/12/2006
31365/96 Varbanov, judgment of 05/10/00
39269/98 Kepenerov, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 03/12/03
40061/98 M.S., judgment of 04/07/02 - Friendly settlement
68079/01 Nikolov Nikola, judgment of 14/06/2007, final on 14/09/2007
44624/98 Prikyan and Angelova, judgment of 16/02/2006, final on 16/05/2006
40476/98 Yanakiev, judgment of 10/08/2006, final on 10/11/2006

- 4 cases against France

77773/01 Flandin, judgment of 28/11/2006, final on 28/02/2007
17070/05 Farhi, judgment of 16/01/2007, final on 23/05/2007
73316/01 Siliadin, judgment of 26/07/2005, final on 26/10/2005
49580/99 Santoni, judgment of 29/07/2003, final on 29/10/2003, revised on 01/06/2004, final on 01/09/2004

- 1 case against Italy

10180/04 Patrono, Cascini and Stefanelli, judgment of 20/04/2006, final on 20/07/2006

- 2 cases against Latvia

61005/00 Kornakovs, judgment of 15/06/2006, final on 15/09/2006
66820/01 Svipsta, judgment of 09/03/2006; final on 09/06/2006

- 13 cases against Poland

63131/00 Gębura, judgment of 06/03/2007, final on 06/06/2007
14348/02 Garycki, judgment of 06/02/2007, final on 06/05/2007
6925/02 Szymoński, judgment of 10/10/2006, final on 10/01/2007
46917/99 Stankiewicz, judgment of 06/04/2006, final on 06/07/2006
41187/02 Szwagrun-Baurycza, judgment of 24/10/2006, final on 24/01/2007
18235/02 Dąbrowski, judgment of 19/12/2006, final on 19/03/2007
51744/99 Kwiecień, judgment of 09/01/2007, final on 09/04/2007
43425/98 Skałka, judgment of 27/05/03, final on 27/08/03, rectified on 16/09/03
49913/99 Zielonka, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006
51728/99 Rosenzweig and Bonded Warehouses Ltd., judgment of 28/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005
45972/99 Siemianowski, judgment of 06/09/2005, final on 15/02/2006
38797/03 Ambruszkiewicz, judgment of 04/05/2006, final on 23/10/2006
43797/98 Malisiewicz-Gąsior, judgment of 06/04/2006, final on 06/07/2006

- 1 case against Romania

77193/01+ Dragotoniu and Militaru-Pidhorni, judgment of 24/05/2007, final on 24/08/2007

- 1 case against Sweden

47473/99 Hellborg, judgment of 28/02/2006, final on 28/05/2006

- 5 cases against Turkey

1855/02 Kök, judgment of 19/10/2006, final on 19/01/2007
34494/97 H.M., judgment of 08/08/2006, final on 08/11/2006
70845/01 Kılıç Taner, judgment of 24/10/2006, final on 12/02/2007
34478/97 Fener Rum Erkek Lisesi Vakfi, judgment of 09/01/2007, final on 09/04/2007, rectified on 22/05/2007
58771/00 Amato, judgment of 03/05/2007, final on 12/11/2007

      SUB-SECTION 5.4 – OTHER MEASURES

No new case

1 Those items marked with an asterisk * were added after approval of the draft Agenda (Preliminary list of items for consideration at the 1059th meeting) in accordance with the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers for the application of Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

2 The Deputies decided to postpone consideration of this case to the first meeting in 2010 (DH).

3 The Deputies decided to postpone consideration of this case to the 1072nd meeting (December 2009) (DH).

4 The Deputies decided to postpone consideration of this case to the 1072nd meeting (December 2009) (DH).

5 The Deputies decided to postpone consideration of these cases to the 1065th meeting (15-16 September 2009) (DH).

6 The Deputies decided to postpone consideration of this case to the 1072nd meeting (December 2009) (DH).


 Top

 

  Related Documents
 
   Meetings
 
   Other documents