CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG — 11 janvier 2008

.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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   16 11.1.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING HEARINGS IN JANUARY 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding the following two hearings on 15 and 16 January 2008 :   Tuesday 15 January 2008: 9 a.m.   Chamber hearing on the merits and the admissibility   Kart v. Turkey (application no. 8917/05)   The applicant, Atilla Kart, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Ankara. He is a member of the Grand National Assembly (National Assembly), the Turkish Parliament.   The case concerns Mr Kart’s complaint that he could not defend his name in criminal proceedings against him because, as a member of parliament (MP), he was subject to parliamentary immunity.   At the parliamentary elections of 3 November 2002 he was elected to the National Assembly as a member of the People’s Republican Party (CHP).   Prior to his election he practised as a lawyer and, in the course of his professional activities, two sets of criminal proceedings were brought against him, one for insulting a lawyer and the other for insulting a public official.   As an MP he enjoyed parliamentary immunity and, as a result, the criminal proceedings against him were stayed. The file was forwarded to the National Assembly and then to a joint committee which adopted a decision to stay the proceedings until the end of Mr Kart’s parliamentary term.   On 31 January 2005 the applicant lodged an objection against that decision. His case was accordingly forwarded to the general assembly of the National Assembly and, on 16 February 2005, during the general assembly session, the applicant again requested that he be given a fair trial. His objection was rejected.   He was re-elected in the parliamentary elections of 22 July 2007.   The applicant complains that his defence rights have been infringed because he has been denied the opportunity to clear his name. He also complains that no remedy is available concerning the refusal by the National Assembly to lift his parliamentary immunity or the decision to stay the criminal proceedings against him until the end of his parliamentary term. He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Wednesday 16 January 2008: 9 a.m.   Grand Chamber [1] hearing   Demir and Beykara v. Turkey (no. 34503/97)   The applicants, Kemal Demir and Vicdan Baykara, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1951 and 1958 respectively. Mr Demir lives in Gaziantep and Ms Baykara in Istanbul. At the material time, Ms Baykara was the general secretary of the Tüm Bel Sen trade union and Mr   Demir a member.   The case concerned a finding by the Court of Cassation that Tüm Bel Sen had no separate legal personality and the consequent cancellation of a collective bargaining agreement it had entered into with Gaziantep Town Council.   Tüm Bel Sen was founded in 1990 by civil servants from various localities, to promote democratic trade unionism and to serve the aspirations and needs of its members.   In 1993 it entered into a collective bargaining agreement with Gaziantep Town Council regulating all aspects of working conditions at the council, including salaries, benefits and welfare services. It later sued the council on the ground that it had defaulted on its obligations, in particular, those of a financial nature. It won the case at first instance.   However, on 6 December 1995 the Court of Cassation ruled that at the time Tum Bel Sen was founded Turkish law did not permit civil servants to form unions and that it could not rely on the relevant international treaties as they were not yet applicable in Turkish law. It therefore concluded that Tum Bel Sen did not have legal personality or the capacity to enter into a collective bargaining agreement.   Following an audit of the town council’s accounts by the Audit Court, the State asked the members of Tum Bel Sen to reimburse the additional revenue they had received under the defunct collective bargaining agreement.   The applicants complain under Articles 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) that the Turkish courts have denied them the right to form a trade union and to enter into a collective bargaining agreement.     ***   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ). [2]   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] A Chamber judgment was delivered on 21 November 2006 in which the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights. On 21 February 2007 the Government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber (Article 43 of the Convention and Rule 73 of the Rules of Court). The panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on 23 May 2007. [2] These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court.