This judgment is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the official reports of selected judgments and decisions of the Court. SÜREK (No. 4) JUDGMENT OF 8 JULY 1999 1 In the case of Sürek v. Turkey no. 4, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 27 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”), as amended by Protocol No. 111, and the relevant provisions of the Rules of Court2, as a Grand Chamber composed of the following judges: Mr L. WILDHABER, President, Mrs E. PALM, Mr A. PASTOR RIDRUEJO, Mr G. BONELLO, Mr J. MAKARCZYK, Mr P. KŪRIS, Mr J.-P. COSTA, Mrs F. TULKENS, Mrs V. STRÁŽNICKÁ, Mr M. FISCHBACH, Mr V. BUTKEVYCH, Mr J. CASADEVALL, Mrs H.S. GREVE, Mr A.B. BAKA, Mr R. MARUSTE, Mr K. TRAJA, Mr F. GÖLCÜKLÜ, ad hoc judge, and also of Mr P. J. MAHONEY and Mrs...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF SÜREK v. TURKEY (No. 4) (application no. 24762/94) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 8 July 1999 This judgment is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the official reports of selected judgments and decisions of the Court.
SÜREK (No. 4) JUDGMENT OF 8 JULY 1999 1 In the case of Sürek v. Turkey no. 4, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 27 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”), as amended by Protocol No. 111, and the relevant provisions of the Rules of Court2, as a Grand Chamber composed of the following judges: Mr L. WILDHABER, President, Mrs E. PALM, Mr A. PASTOR RIDRUEJO, Mr G. BONELLO, Mr J. MAKARCZYK, Mr P. KŪRIS, Mr J.-P. COSTA, Mrs F. TULKENS, Mrs V. STRÁŽNICKÁ, Mr M. FISCHBACH, Mr V. BUTKEVYCH, Mr J. CASADEVALL, Mrs H.S. GREVE, Mr A.B. BAKA, Mr R. MARUSTE, Mr K. TRAJA, Mr F. GÖLCÜKLÜ, ad hoc judge, and also of Mr P. J. MAHONEY and Mrs M. DE BOER-BUQUICCHIO, Deputy Registrars, Having deliberated in private on 3 March and 16 June 1999, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last- mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case was referred to the Court as established under former Article 19 of the Convention3 by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) on 27 April 1998, within the three-month period laid down by former Articles 32 § 1 and 47 of the Convention. It originated in an application (no. 24762/94) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Commission under former Article 25 by a Turkish national, Mr Kamil Tekin Sürek, on 27 July 1994. Notes by the Registry 1-2. Protocol No. 11 and the Rules of Court entered into force on 1 November 1998. 3. Since the entry into force of Protocol No. 11, which amended Article 19, the Court has functioned on a permanent basis.
SÜREK (No. 4) JUDGMENT OF 8 JULY 1999 2 The Commission’s request referred to former Articles 44 and 48 of the Convention and to the declaration whereby Turkey recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (former Article 46). The object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Articles 6 § 1 and 10 of the Convention. 2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 § 3 (d) of the former Rules of Court A1, the applicant stated that he wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who would represent him (Rule 30). Mr R. Bernhardt, President of the Court at the time, subsequently authorised the applicant’s lawyer to use the Turkish language in the written procedure (Rule 27 § 3). At a later stage, Mr L. Wildhaber, President of the new Court, authorised the applicant’s lawyer to use the Turkish language in the oral proceedings (Rule 36 § 5). 3. As Pre...