[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> 49 cases v Turkey - 62608/00 [2011] ECHR 2392 (13 December 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/2392.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 2392

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)307¹

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

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