CASE OF EROL AKSOY v. TÜRKİYE
Here’s a breakdown of the Erol Aksoy v. Türkiye decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Türkiye in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention due to the non-enforcement of Supreme Administrative Court judgments. These judgments had annulled decisions related to the valuation, tender invitation, and subsequent sale of a television channel and radio station (Viva TV-Radio Viva) owned by joint-stock companies in which the applicant, Erol Aksoy, held shares. The Court determined that the failure to enforce these judgments directly affected Aksoy’s right to procedural safeguards in the determination of his civil rights and obligations. However, the Court rejected Aksoy’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, finding that he did not have victim status in relation to his property rights as a shareholder. The Court ordered Türkiye to pay Aksoy EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets the stage, outlining the case’s core issue: non-enforcement of judgments concerning the sale of Viva TV-Radio Viva.
* **Facts:** Details the background, including the 2001 economic crisis, the transfer of İktisat Bankası to the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund (the Fund), Aksoy’s shareholdings, and the Fund’s decision to recover debts. It describes the Liquidation Protocol, the Fund’s subsequent actions, and the sale of Viva TV-Radio Viva.
* **First Set of Proceedings:** Focuses on Aksoy’s challenge to the Fund’s valuation decision of January 13, 2011, and the Supreme Administrative Court’s annulment of that decision.
* **Second Set of Proceedings:** Covers Aksoy’s challenge to the sale of Viva TV-Radio Viva, which also resulted in an annulment judgment in his favor.
* **Individual Application before the Constitutional Court:** Details Aksoy’s unsuccessful attempt to challenge the non-enforcement before the Turkish Constitutional Court.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Provides context with references to relevant domestic law and case-law, including the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 12 December 2019 (the case of Erol Aksoy (no. 2)).
* **The Law:** This section is the heart of the judgment.
* **Preliminary Objections Raised by the Government:** Addresses and dismisses the Turkish Government’s objections regarding admissibility, including non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and non-compliance with the six-month time-limit.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention:** Examines the applicability of Article 6 and Aksoy’s victim status. The Court finds a violation due to the failure to enforce the judgments.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention:** Assesses Aksoy’s claim regarding his property rights. The Court finds that Aksoy does not have victim status in this regard, as the actions did not directly affect his shareholder rights.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Deals with just satisfaction, awarding Aksoy EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Article 6 § 1 Violation:** The core finding is that Türkiye violated Article 6 § 1 by failing to enforce the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgments. This highlights the importance of enforcing court decisions to ensure a fair trial and uphold the rule of law.
* **Victim Status under Article 6:** The Court clarifies that Aksoy had victim status because the non-enforcement directly and personally affected his right to procedural safeguards in the determination of his civil rights and obligations.
* **Rejection of Article 1 Protocol No. 1 Claim:** The Court’s rejection of Aksoy’s claim under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 emphasizes that shareholders generally cannot claim victim status for measures targeting the company unless their shareholder rights are directly affected or exceptional circumstances exist.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The Court’s award of EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses provides guidance on potential remedies in similar cases.
This decision underscores the obligation of states to enforce court judgments and the importance of protecting individuals’ rights to a fair trial. It also clarifies the circumstances under which shareholders can claim victim status for violations of their property rights.
CASE OF KAYA AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Kaya and Others v. Türkiye, concerning the premature termination of the applicants’ terms of office as judges at the Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court in Turkey. The termination occurred following the entry into force of Law no. 6723, which amended laws related to the structure of these courts. The applicants alleged a violation of their right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECtHR found that the applicants were indeed denied access to a court to contest the termination of their mandates, thereby violating Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court dismissed the Turkish Government’s objections regarding the admissibility of the applications, including arguments about incompatibility with the Convention and non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. As a result, the Court awarded each applicant 3,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and also granted specific amounts for costs and expenses to those applicants who provided supporting documents.
The decision is structured as follows: it begins with the procedural history and the facts of the case, outlining the applicants’ positions and the relevant Turkish legislation. It then moves to the Court’s assessment, which includes a joinder of the applications due to their similar subject matter. The Court addresses the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1, examining the admissibility issues raised by the Government, such as incompatibility ratione materiae and non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, dismissing them based on previous case law. Finally, the judgment addresses the merits of the case, finding a violation of Article 6 § 1, and concludes with the application of Article 41, concerning just satisfaction, where the Court awards compensation for non-pecuniary damage and certain costs and expenses.
The main provision of the decision is the finding that the applicants’ right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, was violated due to the lack of judicial review of the decision to terminate their terms of office. This reaffirms the importance of judicial independence and the right to challenge decisions affecting judicial tenure. The decision also highlights the ECtHR’s consistent approach in similar cases against Türkiye, particularly concerning the aftermath of Law no. 6723 and its impact on the judiciary.
CASE OF PUCKO PETROL IMPORT-EXPORT DOOEL v. NORTH MACEDONIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Pucko Petrol import-export Dooel v. North Macedonia decision:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights found North Macedonia in violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the Convention due to the non-enforcement of a final domestic judgment in favor of Pucko Petrol against a State-run student residence. The Court determined that the delay in enforcing the judgment, which awarded Pucko Petrol approximately 48,000 euros, was excessive and impaired the essence of the company’s rights. The Court dismissed the Government’s objections concerning abuse of the right of individual application, non-exhaustion of the domestic length remedy and non-compliance with the six-month time-limit. The Court also found that the State authorities failed to take the necessary measures to enforce the judgment in the applicant company’s favour in full and in a timely manner.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** The case revolves around the non-enforcement of a final judgment in favor of Pucko Petrol against a State-run student residence.
* **Background:** The applicant company won a judgment in 2018 for approximately 48,000 euros, but enforcement was hindered by “surplus decisions” that prioritized the debtor’s essential functions.
* **Agreements and Payments:** The applicant company entered into debt repayment agreements with the debtor, and some payments were made, but a substantial part of the debt remained unpaid.
* **Complaints:** Pucko Petrol complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment, lack of effective remedies, and infringement of its right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
* **Court’s Assessment:**
* **Article 6 § 1 (Right to a Fair Trial):** The Court found a violation, emphasizing that the delay in enforcement impaired the essence of the applicant company’s rights.
* **Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Protection of Property):** The Court also found a violation, stating that the failure to enforce the judgment constituted an unjustified interference with the applicant company’s right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions.
* **Article 13 (Right to an Effective Remedy):** The Court deemed it unnecessary to rule separately on this complaint, as the main legal questions had already been addressed.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court ordered North Macedonia to ensure the enforcement of the final domestic judgment and to pay the applicant company 1,439 euros for costs and expenses.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Non-Enforcement of Judgments:** The decision reinforces the principle that states must take necessary measures to enforce final judgments in a timely manner.
* **Legitimate Aim vs. Individual Rights:** While states may have legitimate aims for delaying enforcement, such delays cannot impair the essence of an individual’s rights under Article 6 § 1.
* **State’s Responsibility:** The decision highlights the responsibility of state-owned entities to ensure funds are available to honor debts.
* **Continuous Situation:** The Court considered the non-enforcement of a final domestic judgment a continuous situation.
I hope this analysis is helpful.
CASE OF SELAMI v. GREECE
This judgment in the case of Selami v. Greece, delivered by the European Court of Human Rights, addresses the applicant’s complaints regarding the fairness of criminal proceedings against him. The applicant, an Albanian national convicted of intentional homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment, argued that he was deprived of adequate time and facilities to prepare his defense, violating Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention. He also claimed a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c), asserting he was denied legal assistance of his own choosing. The Court found a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) due to the insufficient one-hour suspension granted for the applicant to communicate with his court-appointed lawyer.
The judgment is structured around the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. It begins by outlining the facts of the case, including the applicant’s conviction and subsequent appeals. The Court then assesses the alleged violations, addressing the government’s preliminary objections regarding victim status and exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court dismisses the objections and declares admissible the complaint regarding insufficient time to prepare a defense. It deems inadmissible the complaints concerning the lack of an interpreter during communication with the lawyer and the denial of legal assistance of the applicant’s choosing. Finally, the Court addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, awarding the applicant EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 800 for costs and expenses.
The most important provision of this decision is the Court’s finding that the one-hour suspension granted to the applicant to communicate with his court-appointed lawyer was insufficient to prepare his defense, thus violating Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention. This highlights the importance of providing defendants with adequate time and facilities to prepare their defense, especially in cases involving serious crimes and when the defendant does not speak the local language. The Court emphasized that the appeal court was the final substantive court and should have taken positive measures to ensure the applicant had sufficient time to prepare his defense.
