Resolution 1381 (2004)1
Implementation of decisions of the European
Court of Human Rights by Turkey
1. In its Resolution
1268 (2002) on implementation of decisions of the European Court of
Human Rights, the Parliamentary Assembly, considering the high number of
decisions against Turkey that had not, at that time, been implemented,
instructed its Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to confer with
the national delegation of Turkey and with the Government of Turkey and
to report to it on the progress made.
2. In pursuance of the latter decision, the Assembly adopted its Resolution
1297 (2002) on implementation of decisions of the European Court of
Human Rights by Turkey where it welcomed the constitutional and legal changes
which had taken place in Turkey, in order to contribute to preventing further
violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) but where
it also regretted that a number of important problems remained unsolved.
3. The outstanding problems related to the modalities of payment of just
satisfaction, immediate reversal of the consequences of convictions which
violate the ECHR, (including restoration of the applicants’ civil and
political rights), excessive interferences with freedom of expression (notably
in application of the criminal code and the anti-terrorism legislation),
control of the action of the security forces, the dissolution of political
parties, the case of Cyprus versus Turkey and finally the Loizidou case.
4. The Assembly welcomes the significant progress that has been achieved
since the adoption of the constitutional and legislative changes mentioned
in the previous report; however, further comprehensive action has still to
be taken. As the efficient implementation of these reforms is crucial for
achieving real improvement in ensuring respect for the Convention, all efforts
have to be deployed towards this end.
5. Firstly, it welcomes the settlement of the Loizidou case by the payment
on 2 December 2003 of the just satisfaction owed to the applicant. It none
the less recalls that payment of just satisfaction, although it is a great
step forward in the implementation of the judgment of 1998, still does not,
in fact, implement the basic context of the decision (violation of Article
1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR, by illegal expropriation). This element
will be examined by the Committee of Ministers at the end of 2005.
6. Finally, it welcomes the release of Leyla Zana, Selim Sadak, Hatip Dicle
and Orhan Dogan on 9 June 2004, awaiting the decision of the Court
of Appeal on the applicants’ appeal against their second sentence to
fifteen years’ imprisonment.
7. The situation in other priority areas can be summarised as follows:
i. as regards payment, procedures have improved but problems still persist
in a number of cases;
ii. with regard to remedying unfair trials, the requests for new proceedings
have been accepted and new trials have started or taken place in certain
cases (Sadak, Zana, Dicle and Dogan). Although their sentences have
been confirmed, the accused were released on 9 June 2004 following a decision
of the Court of Cassation, while awaiting the decision of the Court of
Appeal;
iii. the Assembly welcomes the fact that a constitutional reform package
has been adopted by the Turkish Grand National Assembly providing for the
abolition of the State Security Court, the trials of which have been deemed
unfair in various judgments of the European Court of Human Rights;
iv. regarding the reversal of the consequences of the convictions imposed
in violation of Article 10 of the ECHR, such measures are presently under
way, although unfortunately excessively late, in a restricted number of
cases, including the restoration of the applicants’ civil and political
rights (among the eighteen cases mentioned in 2002, eight applicants were,
at the end of 2003, no longer subjected
to restrictions on their rights);
v. the new law on reopening of proceedings, which took effect on 4 February
2003, excludes, however, from its scope the cases pending before the Court
at its date of entry into force and friendly settlements;
vi. furthermore, improvements have been made to freedom of expression
through the abrogation of Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act and amendments
to other laws, in particular Articles 159 and 312 of the Criminal Code; a
number of laws remain, however, unchanged;
vii. as regards the dissolution of political parties, no new measures
have been reported since 2002; in particular, there have been no changes
to Articles 68 or 69 of the Constitution or of the corresponding provisions
in the Law on Political Parties; neither has any major development of case-law
of the Constitutional Court been reported;
viii. as to the Zana judgment of 1997, the new law that was to amend the
Code of Criminal Procedure has not yet been adopted.
8. Concerning the case of Cyprus versus Turkey, measures have been taken
on specific points but urgent questions, such as the issue of missing persons
and the right of Greek Cypriot children to secondary schooling in the Greek
language in northern Cyprus, continue to be examined.
9. In the light of the foregoing, it is plain that Turkey has taken important
actions to implement the Court’s judgments. The fact remains, however,
that some of the cases mentioned in the Assembly’s previous resolution
are still not settled, or only partly so.
10. Accordingly, the Assembly urges the Turkish authorities:
i. to take further steps to improve payment procedures;
ii. to revise the legislation on the reopening of proceedings so as to
make it applicable to the judgments delivered after its entry into force,
as well as to friendly settlements;
iii. to revise Article 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act to make it compatible
with Article 10 of the ECHR (see in particular the cases of Sürek and Özdemir,
and Sürek II);
iv. to take all the necessary measures to allow the opening of a Greek
secondary school in the northern part of Cyprus (case of Cyprus versus
Turkey);
v. to take the necessary measures to enable, after the judgments, the
immediate reversal of all consequences of violations of Article 10 of the
ECHR found by the Court;
vi. to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to comply notably
with the Zana judgment;
vii. to rapidly step up the current action aimed at stopping all acts
of torture and ill-treatment.
[1] Assembly
debate on 22 June 2004
(18th Sitting) (see
Doc. 10192,
report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, rapporteur:
Mr Jurgens).
Text adopted by the Assembly on 22 June 2004 (19th Sitting).
