The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11 December 2007 as a Chamber composed of: Mrs F. TULKENS, President, Mr A.B. BAKA, Mr R. TÜRMEN, Mr M. UGREKHELIDZE, Mr V. ZAGREBELSKY, Mrs D. JOČIENĖ, Mr D. POPOVIĆ, judges, and Mrs S. DOLLÉ, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 July 2000, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants were born in 1964 and 1955 respectively and live in Istanbul. They were represented before the Court by Mr Ö. Kılıç, Mr O. Ergin and Mr A. R. Aydın, lawyers practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Applications nos. 60813/00 and 61317/00 by Ali KAYA and Veysel DİRİ against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11 December 2007 as a Chamber composed of: Mrs F. TULKENS, President, Mr A.B. BAKA, Mr R. TÜRMEN, Mr M. UGREKHELIDZE, Mr V. ZAGREBELSKY, Mrs D. JOČIENĖ, Mr D. POPOVIĆ, judges, and Mrs S. DOLLÉ, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 July 2000, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants were born in 1964 and 1955 respectively and live in Istanbul. They were represented before the Court by Mr Ö. Kılıç, Mr O. Ergin and Mr A. R. Aydın, lawyers practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court.
2 KAYA AND DIRI v. TURKEY DECISION A. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicants were members of the Tunceli Culture and Solidarity Association (Tunceli Kültür ve Dayanışma Derneği; hereafter “the Association”) at the time of the events. On 17 November 1996 the Association held its 4th general assembly, during which certain people made speeches of a political nature. At this meeting the second applicant was elected as member of the board of directors. Subsequently, the Fatih public prosecutor’s office issued, on various dates, indictments against the Association’s president and eight members of the board of directors at the time of the commission of the offence on the ground that they had acted contrary to the aim of the establishment of the Association by making and authorising declarations of a political nature. The charges were brought under Section 76 of Law no. 2908. The second applicant was not charged as he had not been a member of the board of directors at that time. On 18 November 1998 the Fatih Criminal Court of First Instance convicted the Association’s president and eight members of the board of directors as charged. In addition, it ordered the dissolution of the Association, pursuant to Section 76 § 1 of Law no. 2908. At the Association’s 5th general assembly held on 27 December 1998, the second applicant was again elected as a member of board of directors. On 19 November 1999, the first applicant became a member of the board of directors, following the resignation of another member. On 28 January 2000 both applicants were still members of the board of directors of the Association. On 14 February 2000 the Court of Cassation held a h...