The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 16 September 2014 as a Committee composed of: Helen Keller, President, Egidijus Kūris, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 October 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Tayfun Görgün, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Ankara. He was represented before the Court by Ms D. Hatipoğlu Aydın, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. At the time of the events giving rise to this application, the applicant was the head of the Ankara office of the trade union DİSK (Devrimci İşçi Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – Confederation of Revolutionary Workers’ Trade Unions) and the Deputy...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 42978/06 Tayfun GÖRGÜN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 16 September 2014 as a Committee composed of: Helen Keller, President, Egidijus Kūris, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 October 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Tayfun Görgün, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Ankara. He was represented before the Court by Ms D. Hatipoğlu Aydın, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. At the time of the events giving rise to this application, the applicant was the head of the Ankara office of the trade union DİSK (Devrimci İşçi Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – Confederation of Revolutionary Workers’ Trade Unions) and the Deputy President of a mining union. On 15 December 2005 a demonstration was organised in Ankara by a number of NGOs and trade unions, including the DİSK, to protest against the proposed social security reforms in Turkey. It appears that posters prepared to advertise this demonstration, which indicated the DİSK as one
2 GÖRGÜN v. TURKEY DECISION of the organisers, had been posted around Ankara, including on an electricity transformer and an advertisement board in Dikimevi. On 20 December 2005 the applicant was informed by officers of the Municipality of Ankara that legal measures would be taken against the DİSK for posting material on non-designated areas without the permission of the Municipality, contravening Section 29 of the relevant municipal regulation (“Ankara Belediyesi Zabıta ve Küşat Yönetmeliği”). On 26 January 2006 the applicant, in his capacity as the representative of DİSK, was subjected to an administrative fine of 124 Turkish liras (TRY) (76 euros (EUR)) by a decision of the Municipality of Ankara under Section 1 of Law no. 1608 concerning the various penalties that may be awarded by municipalities (“Umuru Belediyeye Müteallik Ahkamı Cezaiye Hakkında Kanun”). The applicant objected to that decision, arguing that he had no involvement in the hanging of the posters in question. On 10 April 2006 the Ankara Magistrates’ Court rejected the applicant’s objection by a final decision, without holding a hearing. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair trial, mainly because (i) he had been held responsible for an offence that he had not personally committed, (ii) the Magistrates’ Court had not held a hearing and heard witnesses, (iii) the Magistrates’ Court’s decision had not been reasoned and (iv) there had been no possibility to appeal that decision. He also complained that the penalty imposed for advertising a lawful demonstration had violated both his and his trade union’s right to freedom of expression unde...