003-490082-491340

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS    070  5.2.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Luxembourg and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments both of which are final[1]:   SECTION 4   (1)  Yolcu v. Turkey (application no. 34684/97)  Friendly settlement On 24 July 1996 Vahdettin Yolcu, a Turkish national, was arrested and placed in custody in the course of an investigation concerning members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).   In a letter, dated 25 July 1996, the Istanbul Security Directorate informed the office of the public prosecutor at Istanbul State Security Court that, following the applicant’s confessions, police officers had searched his house and found several explosives. On the same date, the public prosecutor authorised the Istanbul Security Directorate to extend the applicant’s detention until 5 August 1996.   At a hearing on 18 October 1996 before the State Security Court the applicant claimed he had been forced to sign a statement without having read it. His requests for release pending trial were rejected. On 23 May 1997 he was convicted of aiding and abetting the PKK, under Article 169 of the Turkish Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law No. 3713 on the Prevention of Terrorism (Law No. 3713), and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and debarred from employment in public service.   He complained, among other things, under Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights that he was kept in police custody for 12 days without being brought before a judge and that he had been a victim of a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) (right to defend self through legal assistance of own choosing), in that he was not permitted legal assistance during questioning by the police, the public prosecutor and the investigating judge.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 40,000 French francs inclusive of costs and expenses is to be paid to the applicant on an ex gratia basis. (The judgment is available only in English.) .     (2)  Matthies-Lenzen v. Luxembourg (no. 45165/99) Friendly settlement Doris Matthies-Lenzen and Götz Matthies are both German nationals born in 1945 and 1935 respectively who live in Cologne. They complained about the length of the criminal proceedings to which they had been joined as civil parties. The proceedings at issue started on 28 October 1993 and appear still to be pending. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 550,000 Luxembourg francs is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)  Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 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.