The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of: Mr B.M. ZUPANČIČ, President, Mr C. BÎRSAN, Mrs E. FURA-SANDSTRÖM1, Mrs A. GYULUMYAN, Mr E. MYJER, Mr DAVID THÓR BJÖRGVINSSON, Mrs I. BERRO-LEFÈVRE, judges, and Mr S. NAISMITH, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 September 1999, Having regard to the partial decision of 28 September 2006, 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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Maşuk Güler, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Gaziantep. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Vefa, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. The...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 14152/02 by Maşuk GÜLER against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of: Mr B.M. ZUPANČIČ, President, Mr C. BÎRSAN, Mrs E. FURA-SANDSTRÖM1, Mrs A. GYULUMYAN, Mr E. MYJER, Mr DAVID THÓR BJÖRGVINSSON, Mrs I. BERRO-LEFÈVRE, judges, and Mr S. NAISMITH, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 September 1999, Having regard to the partial decision of 28 September 2006, 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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Maşuk Güler, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Gaziantep. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Vefa, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. The Turkish Government 1 Mrs E. Fura-Sandström was designated to sit as national judge in respect of Turkey in accordance with Rule 29 of the Rules of Court.
2 GÜLER v. TURKEY DECISION (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 7 January 1994 the applicant was taken into police custody in Tatvan on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party). On 31 January 1994 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, along with forty-two persons. The applicant was charged with membership of the PKK under Article 168 of the Criminal Code. On 18 December 1997 the Diyarbakır State Security Court, which was composed of three judges including a military judge, convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. On 2 March 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had not received a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Diyarbakır State Security Court. THE LAW On 3 May 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the applicant: “I note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay ex gratia to the applicant an all-inclusive amount of EUR 1,500 (one thousand and five hundred euros) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned application pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as legal costs and expenses connected with the case, shall be paid in euros, to be converted into ...