CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 décembre 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   929 18.12.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT NURETTIN ALDEMIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Nurettin Aldemir and Others v. Turkey (application nos. 32124/02, 32126/02, 32129/02, 32132/02, 32133/02, 32137/02 and 32138/02)).   The Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are eight Turkish nationals who live in Ankara and Istanbul: Nurettin Aldemir, Arzu Doğan, Şehrinaz Artar, Ömer Buzludağ, Sami Evren, Ali Rıza Özer, Tacettin Yağdıran and Elif Akgül. They were born in 1958, 1964, 1958, 1961, 1958, 1958, 1964 and 1968 respectively.   The applicants are members of “EĞİTİM-SEN” (The Education Workers’ Trade Union), which is a member of “KESK” (Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – The Confederation of Public Employees' Trade Unions). They all took part in trade union rallies which were broken up by the authorities.   In 2001 “KESK” decided to organise meetings in Ankara to protest against a draft bill on trade unions under discussion in Parliament, on the ground that it failed to meet international standards. However, the chosen meeting place (in Kızılay) was not in an authorised area (according to the relevant circular, issued under the Law on Meetings and Demonstration Marches (Law no. 2911).   On 7 and 25 June 2001 the applicants took part in rallies in Kızılay. On both occasions, while the president of “KESK” was making a statement to the press, police officers warned demonstrators that their action was illegal and that they had to disperse. The demonstrators blocked the main street of the Kızılay district (Atatürk Avenue) and attempted to march towards the Prime Minister's Office. The police officers then intervened and used truncheons, sticks and tear gas to disperse the crowds. Some of the demonstrators attacked the security forces using pavement stones and sticks, injuring seven police officers and destroying a police vehicle. The applicants were also wounded during the incidents.   On 7 June 2001 a doctor noted that Şehrinaz Artar had a 2x2 cm bruise on his left eyebrow and Ömer Buzludağ had a 3cm abrasion on his right eyebrow. Nurettin Aldemir, Sami Evren and Ali Rıza Özer did not submit any medical evidence. On 25 June 2001 doctors found that: Arzu Doğan had a bruise on her lip, a grazed left wrist and abrasions on her right wrist and arm (she was declared unfit for work for one day); Tacettin Yağdıran had a sutured injury on his head and a haematoma under the injury (he was declared unfit for work for seven days); and Elif Akgül had abrasions on his shoulder and back, and a 2x2 haematoma on his right frontal lobe (he was declared unfit for work for five days).   The applicants filed a complaint against various officials and the police officers involved in the incidents.   On 26 June 2001 27 demonstrators, including Arzu Doğan and Sami Evren, were charged with violating the Law on Meetings and Demonstration Marches.   On 9 October 2001 the Ministry of the Interior, relying on Article 4 of Law no. 4483, decided not to take any action against the officials and officers accused. The Ministry considered that the force used by the police was lawful and justified in the circumstances and that the officers had been under an obligation to disperse the demonstrators who had organised an illegal meeting.   On 14 November 2001 Ankara Criminal Court acquitted Arzu Doğan and Sami Evren, as well as other demonstrators. The court decided that the demonstrators had a right to hold unarmed and peaceful meetings and demonstrations without prior permission.   On 29 January 2002 the Ankara Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-prosecution concerning the applicants' complaints.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 12 April 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants relied, in particular, on Article   11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 11   The Court noted that the applicants took part in demonstrations to draw public attention to and secure the withdrawal of a draft bill on trade unions which, they believed, contravened international standards. However, their meetings were forcibly ended by the police on the ground that the location chosen was unauthorised. Although two applicants were acquitted and no proceedings were brought against the others, the interference in the meetings and the force used by the police to disperse the participants, as well as the subsequent prosecution, could have discouraged the applicants from taking part in similar meetings.   The Court therefore considered that the applicants were negatively affected by the police intervention and that there had been an interference with their right to freedom of peaceful assembly. That interference was prescribed by law (Law no. 2911) and pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting public safety.   As to whether the interference was “necessary in a democratic society”, the authorities had a duty to take appropriate measures with regard to lawful demonstrations in order to ensure their peaceful conduct and the safety of all citizens. States also had to refrain from applying unreasonable indirect restrictions upon that right and those principles were also applicable to demonstrations and processions organised in public areas.   The Court observed that there was no evidence to suggest that the two groups in question initially presented a serious danger to public order. Nevertheless, it was likely that they would have caused some disruption in a particularly busy square in central Ankara. The rallies were initially peaceful. However, the authorities' intervened swiftly with considerable force in order to disperse them, thereby causing tensions to rise, followed by clashes. Where demonstrators did not engage in acts of violence, it was important for the public authorities to show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings. The Court therefore considered that the forceful intervention of the police officers was disproportionate and was not necessary for the prevention of disorder, in violation of Article 11.   Other articles   The Court declared the applicants’ other complaints inadmissible.     Judges Türmen and Mularoni expressed a joint dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.