Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/37096.97-37101.97-en-20050125/view/
Timestamp: 2020-08-08 17:16:51
Document Index: 102517173

Matched Legal Cases: ['application no. 37101', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 60', '§ 36', '§ 2', '§ 2']

KARADEMIRCI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY About Project
CASE OF KARADEMİRCİ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
(Applications nos. 37096/97 and 37101/97)
In the case of Karademirci and Others v. Turkey,
Having deliberated in private on 4 January 2005,
1. The case originated in two applications (nos. 37096/97 and 37101/97) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by six Turkish nationals, Mr İsmail Karademirci, Mr Mehmet Zencir, Ms Şennur Yılmaz, Ms Ayla Bilir, Ms Ayfer Aydoğdu and Ms S.T. (“the applicants”), on 8 April and 12 May 1997 respectively.
2. The first five applicants were represented by Mr M. Ufacik, and the sixth applicant by Mr A.A. Alkan. Both representatives are members of the İzmir Bar. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not appoint a representative for the proceedings before the Court.
3. The applicants alleged violations of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention and of Article 9 (in application no. 37101/97).
6. On 21 September 1999 the Chamber decided to join the applications (Rule 42 § 1) and to communicate them to the Government.
7. On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). The applications were assigned to the newly composed Fourth Section (Rule 52 § 1).
8. By a decision of 3 September 2002, the Chamber declared the applications partly admissible.
10. 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).
11. The applicants were born in 1961, 1964, 1966, 1966, 1961 and 1972 respectively and live in İzmir.
12. On 30 June 1995 twenty-five people, including the applicants, gathered outside the Yenişehir Meslek Lisesi secondary school. The first applicant, İsmail Karademirci, who was the president of the Health Workers' Union (Tüm Sağlık Sen), read out a statement signed by the İzmir branches of that union and of the Education Union (Eğitim Sen) denouncing the ill-treatment of pupils from the İzmir Atatürk Sağlık Meslek Lisesi secondary school. The group remained outside the school for twenty-five minutes before dispersing.
13. The statement reads as follows:
“To the press and the general public
The pressure put on pupils by the authorities at the İzmir Atatürk Sağlık Lisesi secondary school has resulted in Vesile Bayram receiving a beating. The pupils reacted by protesting against the school authorities because of the pressure they were under. In an initial attempt to calm down the pupils, whose reaction was justified, the authorities held a meeting with them. However, they reneged on a promise to open an inquiry into the actions of one of the teachers, E.S., who, moreover, was provided with a forensic report.
The pressure continues in the form of a lengthy (one year) suspension of nine pupils, and the deduction of eight marks from their marks for behaviour.
Although officially pupils in the school are not subjected to beatings or academic pressure, the administrators are despots.
We strongly condemn the administrators and teachers, who are responsible for such pressure.
We call for the withdrawal of the penalties imposed on the nine pupils.
We call for an investigation into the conduct of the teacher who administered the beating.
We will not be intimidated by pressure.
We reject reactionary and oppressive education.
The pupils are not alone.
Society should not remain silent.”
14. By an indictment submitted on 23 October 1995, the public prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against twenty-five leaders and members of the Health Workers' Union and the Education Union for making a “statement to the press” (basın açıklaması) without complying with the statutory requirement to obtain a receipt from the public prosecutor's office confirming that they had filed a copy of the statement with it. The public prosecutor relied in particular on sections 44 and 82 of the Associations Act (Law no. 2908 of 6 October 1983).
15. In a judgment of 13 February 1996, the İzmir Criminal Court found the applicants and nine other co-defendants guilty as charged and sentenced them to three months' imprisonment under the provisions relied on by the public prosecutor. The prison sentence was commuted to a suspended fine of 450,000 Turkish liras (7 United States dollars).
17. The applicants appealed to the Court of Cassation against that judgment. In their written submissions, they alleged that their convictions violated their right to freedom of expression and, in particular, that “a statement to the press” could not be classified as a “leaflet” or “written statement” within the meaning of section 44 of the Associations Act.
18. In a judgment of 11 October 1996, the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment at first instance, holding that it complied with the law and the rules of procedure. The applicants did not receive a full copy of the judgment.
19. On 12 November 1996 the judgment of 11 October 1996 was placed in the file of the İzmir Criminal Court. The sixth applicant, Ms S.T., obtained a copy of it on 25 December 1996.
A. The Associations Act (Law no. 2908 of 6 October 1983)
20. The relevant provisions of the Associations Act, which was published in the Official Gazette on 7 October 1983, are as follows:
(as in force at the material time)
“(1) Associations shall not publish or distribute leaflets [bildiri], written statements [beyanname] or similar publications [benzeri yayın] without a prior resolution by their executive board. The leaflets, written statements and similar publications shall contain the forenames, surnames and signatures of the president and members of the executive board which passed the resolution.
(2) A copy of the resolution by the association's executive board to publish and of the leaflet, written statement or similar publication shall be filed for information purposes with the head of the local authority and the public prosecutor's office for the area. The latter shall deliver, in exchange, a receipt recording the time and date the documents were filed. No leaflet, written statement or similar publication may be distributed or communicated to the press until twenty-four hours after it has been filed.”
“Anyone failing to comply with the procedure set out in section 44(1) and (2) shall be liable on conviction to between three and six months' imprisonment.”
B. Domestic practice
21. At the material time trade unions representing public servants were formed without any specific statutory basis. Associations and trade unions were governed by two pieces of legislation: the Associations Act and the Trade Unions Act (Law no. 2821 of 5 May 1983). Although there are no restrictions in the Trade Unions Act on written statements by trade unions, section 63 refers to the Associations Act and lays down that the provisions of that Act shall apply where the Trade Unions Act is silent.
C. The decisions of the Turkish courts in similar cases
22. The first five applicants produced various judgments that had been delivered by the İzmir Criminal Court in cases concerning the activities of public-sector trade unions. These included a judgment of 1 July 1996 (no. 1996/669), from which it emerged that the first five applicants had ultimately been acquitted in another case in which they had been charged with an offence under sections 44 and 82 of the Associations Act after reading out a statement to the press and distributing it to members of the press. In that case, the Criminal Court had followed a judgment of the Court of Cassation (without giving the reference) in finding that a statement read out to the press drafted by the Health Workers' Union could not be classified as a “written statement” or “similar publication” within the meaning of section 44 of the Associations Act.
D. Decisions of the Court of Cassation after the events in the present case
23. On 2 May 2000 and 4 June 2002 the Court of Cassation, sitting as a full court, delivered two judgments in which it clarified the issue of whether it was foreseeable that section 44(1) and (2) of the Associations Act applied to written statements read out to the press by members of an association's executive board. In its view, those subsections applied to texts which had previously been adopted and prepared for publication and dissemination. However, a statement read out to the press by an association on a particular subject was not a text that was drafted with a view to publication and dissemination, but a series of verbal comments. “Dissemination”, “publication” and similar terms could not possibly cover the situation in which the content of a speech due to be made orally was distributed among members of the press as an aid to understanding. The effect of holding otherwise – by a broad interpretation of the law, one which, in other words, included oral statements within the scope of section 44 – would be that members of an association's executive board would be liable to penalties for any replies or explanations given in response to questions from journalists; such a state of affairs would introduce an unlawful restriction on freedoms. In addition, the legislature had unambiguously laid down in that section that a text drafted with a view to publication could be published only once the executive board of the association had so resolved and the relevant documents had been filed with the competent authority.
E. New legislation on associations
24. Law no. 5231, which Parliament passed on 17 July 2004, amends the Associations Act, repealing sections 44 and 82. On 2 August 2004 the President of the Republic returned the legislation to Parliament for a fresh debate on sections 10 and 21, which relate to the financing of associations.
27. The applicants complained that their conviction and sentence under section 44 of the Associations Act had infringed Article 10 of the Convention, which provides:
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime ...”
31. The applicants argued that a statement read out to the press could not be classified as a “written statement” or “similar publication” within the meaning of section 44 of the Associations Act. In their submission, that section could not be considered a basis in law for their conviction and sentence. They pointed out that on 1 July 1996 they had been tried and acquitted on similar charges by the İzmir Criminal Court, which had followed a decision of the Court of Cassation (see paragraph 22 above).
32. The Government contended that the measure in issue was “prescribed by law”. In their submission, as a result of the cross-reference in section 63 of the Trade Unions Act (Law no. 2821), section 44 of the Associations Act laid down a formal procedure to be followed by associations (trade unions in this instance) wishing to publish or distribute leaflets, statements or similar publications. As to the applicants' acquittal on similar charges by the İzmir Criminal Court, the Government pointed out that the two judgments were quite different.
40. It is quite clear that the exercise of freedom of expression may be made subject to compliance with certain formalities. Furthermore, Article 10 of the Convention does not in terms prohibit the imposition of prior restraints on a particular form of communication. However, in the Court's view, if, as in the present case, a failure to comply with a formal procedure constitutes a criminal offence, the law must clearly define the circumstances in which it will apply (see, mutatis mutandis, Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, p. 30, § 60). This principle also means that the scope of a restriction must not be extended to an accused's detriment, for instance by analogy (see, mutatis mutandis, Başkaya and Okçuoğlu v. Turkey [GC], nos. 23536/94 and 24408/94, § 36, ECHR 1999-IV). This requirement will be satisfied if the individual is able to establish from the wording of the relevant provision, and if need be with the assistance of the courts' interpretation of it, the acts and omissions which will make him criminally liable.
46. Mr Karademirci, Mr Zencir, Ms Yılmaz, Ms Bilir and Ms Aydoğdu alleged that they had sustained pecuniary damage which they put at 9,190 euros (EUR). This was the amount of the lawyer's fees in the domestic proceedings, according to the rates set by the İzmir Bar. Ms S.T. alleged that she had suffered pecuniary damage which she estimated at EUR 5,000.
47. The applicants claimed EUR 120,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
48. The Government disputed the claims.
49. With regard to the alleged pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the evidence that has been adduced does not allow it to assess the loss the applicants sustained as a result of the violation of Article 10 of the Convention. It therefore dismisses that claim.
50. As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court finds that the applicants may be taken to have suffered some anxiety in the circumstances of the case. Ruling on an equitable basis as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards each of the applicants EUR 1,000 under this head.
51. Mr Karademirci, Mr Zencir, Ms Yılmaz, Ms Bilir and Ms Aydoğdu claimed EUR 16,878 for the costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings and in the proceedings before the Commission and the Court. They produced as evidence an agreement on fees that referred to the rates applicable to the İzmir Bar and receipts for translation costs in an amount approximately equivalent to EUR 150.
Ms S.T. claimed EUR 2,650 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts, the Commission and the Court. She did not produce any evidence.
52. The Government disputed the claims.
53. Having regard to the evidence before it and its own case-law in this sphere, the Court considers it reasonable to make an overall award to Mr Karademirci, Mr Zencir, Ms Yılmaz, Ms Bilir and Ms Aydoğdu of EUR 1,500 for all their costs.
As regards Ms S.T.'s claim, the Court considers it reasonable to award her EUR 1,500 for all her costs, less the sum of EUR 625.04 which she has received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe.
(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, the following amounts to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) to each of the six applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) for costs and expenses,
EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros) to İsmail Karademirci, Mehmet Zencir, Şennur Yılmaz, Ayla Bilir and Ayfer Aydoğdu jointly;
EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros) to Ms S.T., less
EUR 625.04 (six hundred and twenty-five euros four cents) received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe;
Done in French, and notified in writing on 25 January 2005, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
KARADEM RC AND OTHERS v. TURKEY