Cyprus-Forum.com

[christos1]

ECHR RULING HIGHLIGHTS DISCRIMINATION SUFFERED BY TURKEY’S ALEVI MINORITY
Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 4 Issue: 189
October 12, 2007 12:00 AM Age: 1 yrs
Category: Eurasia Daily Monitor, Turkey
By: Gareth Jenkins

The October 9 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), stating that compulsory religious instruction in Turkey violates the rights of religious minorities, has highlighted the discrimination suffered by the country’s substantial Alevi community (Aksam, Milliyet, Radikal, October 10).

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=33075

There are thousands upon thousands of these stories. 4 million to be exact! I'll be here for a long time!!!!!!!!!!!

[christos1]

Turkey leads in human rights violations, says ECHR

Turkey is wielding the scepter of human rights violations for 2008 among the 47 member-states of the Council of Europe, with 257 convictions against it, followed by Russia with 233 convictions, Romania with 189, Poland with 129 and Ukraine with 110.

These figures were presented on Thursday by the President of the European Court of Human Rights, Jean-Paul Costa at a press conference held in Strasbourg on the occasion of the Court’s 50th anniversary since its establishment.

He called upon the member states of the Council of Europe to reaffirm their commitment to human rights and their support for the Court’s work, while at the same time reflecting with the Court on how to adapt the protection mechanism to the needs of the 21st century.

He stressed the size of the current caseload (nearly 100,000 cases pending), which is constantly increasing, and noted that, regrettably, the various reform proposals had reached an apparent impasse, even if he remained hopeful that the different obstacles could be surmounted.

At the same time, he added, the Court could not simply go on increasing its staff and resources indefinitely, although it would still be necessary to provide the Court with additional means in the short to medium term.

Costa said that something had to be done to safeguard the long-term effectiveness of the system.

The main lines of the reform were clear: comprehensive implementation of the Convention standards at domestic level; effective execution of the Court's judgments by member states to ensure that the Court was not overloaded with large numbers of similar cases and a re-structured protection mechanism allowing the Court's efforts to be concentrated as a matter of priority on the important well-founded cases.

The President stated that the Court had delivered 1,543 judgments in 2008, 3% up on 2007, and 30,163 decisions, 11% up.

He explained that this considerable activity had not reduced the backlog, as some 50,000 new applications had been allocated to a judicial formation in 2008, 20% more than in 2007.

He also pointed out that 57% of applications had been lodged against just four states (the Russian Federation, Turkey, Romania and Ukraine), with the remaining 43% covering the other 43 member states.

While this high caseload showed the confidence that the European public placed in the Court, it carried with it a risk of saturation, he mentioned.

He concluded by saying that the Court had to work together with the Council of Europe and national authorities on improving the information available to the public with a view to getting across to them a clearer message about what the Convention and therefore the Court could do for them and what fell outside their reach.

Also at this press conference, the Court's annual table of violations per country was published for 2008 which it shows that Turkey was the country that gave rise to the greatest number of judgments (257) in which at least one violation of the Convention was found, followed by Russia (233), Romania (189), Poland (129) and Ukraine (110).

The Court has found Turkey guilty of human rights violations in Cyprus on several cases, as a result of its 1974 invasion of the island’s northern part and its continuing occupation.

[christos1]

Turkey condemned by ECHR - human rights violations in Cyprus

This video was posted by Grokked on youtube. I think he posts in this forum if i am not mistaken. anyway, here is another ECHR ruling. View it in English and Turkish:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu7XOErNk9k

[insan]

557
20.10.2005



Press release issued by the Registrar



CHAMBER JUDGMENT OURANIO TOXO AND OTHERS v. GREECE



The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment[1] in the case of Ouranio Toxo and Others v. Greece (application no. 74989/01).



The Court held unanimously that there had been:

a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair hearing) on account of the length of proceedings;
a violation of Article 11 of the Convention (freedom of assembly and association).


Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court made a joint award to the applicants of 2,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage, EUR 30,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,245 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)





1. Principal facts



The applicants are a political party, Ouranio Toxo (“Rainbow”) that was founded in 1994, and two Greek nationals who are members of its political secretariat, Pavlos Voskopoulos and Petros Vassiliadis. They were born in 1964 and 1960 respectively.



Ouranio Toxo, whose declared aims include the defence of the Macedonian minority living in Greece, have been regularly taking part in elections since 1994. In September 1995 the party established its headquarters in Florina. It affixed a sign with the party’s name in the two languages spoken in the region, Greek and Macedonian, to the balcony of the premises. It included the word “vino-zito”, written in the “Slav alphabet”, which means “rainbow” in Macedonian, but was also the rallying cry of forces who had sought to take the town of Florina during the civil war in Macedonia.



On 12 September 1995 priests from the church in Florina published a statement calling on the people to join a “demonstration to protest against the enemies of Greece who arbitrarily display signs with anti-Hellenic inscriptions”. The statement also called for the “deportation” of those responsible. The following day the town council published in the local press a resolution it had adopted to organise protests against the applicants and the public prosecutor ordered the removal of the sign on the ground that the inclusion of the party’s name in Macedonian was liable to sow discord among the local population.



On 13 September 1995 police officers removed the sign without giving any explanation to the applicants, who proceeded to install a replacement. That evening, the applicants say that they were insulted and threatened by a crowd that had gathered in front of the party headquarters and which included the mayor and town councillors. At about 1.30 a.m. a number of people attacked the headquarters, broke into the premises and assaulted those inside, demanding that they deliver up the sign, which the applicants did. A second attack followed at approximately 4 a.m., during the course of which equipment and furniture on the premises were thrown out of the window and set on fire.



The applicants alleged that, while these events were taking place, they telephoned the police station located some 500 metres from the party headquarters, but were told that no officers were available to come out.



The public prosecutor’s office took no action against those involved in the incidents. However, criminal proceedings were brought under Article 192 of the Criminal Code against Mr Voskopoulos, Mr Vassiliadis and others for inciting discord. They were accused of “sowing discord among the local population by affixing a sign to the party’s offices which included a word from a Slav language ‘vino-zito’”. The applicants were acquitted in September 1998.



On 5 December 1995 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint against those responsible for the incidents and applied to be joined to the proceedings as civil parties. However, owing to a lack of evidence, no proceedings were instituted. Following the proceedings before the indictment division, the applicants appealed to the Court of Cassation. Their appeal was dismissed on 30 January 2003.





2. Procedure and composition of the Court



The application was lodged on 11 March 2001 and declared partly inadmissible on 5 December 2002. The remainder of the application was declared admissible on 27 May 2004.



Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:



Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), President,
Christos Rozakis (Greek),
Françoise Tulkens (Belgian),
Peer Lorenzen (Danish),
Nina Vajić (Croatian),
Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger),
Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges,

and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.





3. Summary of the judgment[2]



Complaints



The applicants complained of the length of the proceedings in the indictment division and a breach of the right to freedom of association. They relied on Articles 6 and 11 of the Convention.



Decision of the Court



Article 6 § 1

The Court noted that the proceedings in question had lasted more than seven years and one month, solely for the investigation of the case. In the light of the circumstances, it found that that period was excessive and did not comply with the “reasonable-time” requirement. It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.



Article 11

The Court noted that Ouranio Toxo was a lawfully constituted party one of whose aims was the defence of the Macedonian minority living in Greece. Affixing a sign to the front of its headquarters with the party’s name written in Macedonian could not be considered reprehensible or to constitute in itself a present and imminent threat to public order. The Court was prepared to accept that the use of the term “vino-zito” had aroused hostile sentiment among the local population, as its ambiguous connotations were liable to offend the political or patriotic views of the majority of the population of Florina. However, the risk of causing tension within the community by using political terms in public did not suffice, by itself, to justify interference with freedom of association.



As regards the authorities’ conduct, the Court noted that two days before the incidents, the town council had clearly incited the town population to gather in protest against the applicants and some of its members had taken part in the protests. It had thus helped through its conduct to arouse the hostile sentiment of a section of the population against the applicants. The role of State authorities was to defend and promote the values inherent in a democratic system, such as pluralism, tolerance and social cohesion. In the case before the Court, it would have been more in keeping with the aforementioned values for the local authorities to advocate a conciliatory stance, rather than to stir up confrontational attitudes.



With regard to the conduct of the police, the Court found that they could reasonably have foreseen the danger that the tension would boil over into violence and clear violations of freedom of association. The State should therefore have taken adequate measures to avoid or, at least, contain the violence. However, they had not done so. Despite being contacted repeatedly, the police, who were stationed in the vicinity, did not intervene on the night of the attack, allegedly because of a lack of manpower. The Greek Government had not provided any explanation for the lack of police officers when the incidents were foreseeable. Nor had it escaped the Court’s attention that the public prosecutor had not considered it necessary to start an investigation in the wake of the incidents to determine responsibility. It was only once the applicants had lodged a complaint that the investigation had begun. In cases of interference with freedom of association by individuals, the competent authorities had a duty to take effective investigative measures.

In those circumstances, the Court found that by both their acts and omissions the Greek authorities had violated Article 11.





Judges Lorenzen and Vajić expressed a joint partly dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.



***



The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).



Registry of the European Court of Human Rights
F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex
Press contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)
Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)
Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)
Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)
Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91



The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17‑member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.

[2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2005/ ... 201005.htm

[christos1]

On Ahmet Djavit An, a Cypriot national of Turkish origin born in 1950, is a paediatrician living in Nicosia, north of the "green line".

A critic of the Turkish Cypriot authorities and of the Turkish military presence in the northern part of Cyprus

ECHR ruling here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/balkanhr/message/5123

[Oracle]

I have thousands of pages of human rights violations of Greece would u like me to post all of them?

You might as well post those of Italy or France for all the sense it would make!

Greece is not the one illegally occupying Cyprus ... but TURKEY!

Greece illegally ocuppies 61% of our island since 1964. Greece has big responsibility of converting RoC into the so-called RoC. She blackmailed both NATO and EU to invade 61% of our island, Cyprus.

Then you need to bash NATO and EU for being so "stupid" ....

Go on little Fantasy Flower Fairy .... attack NATO and EU!

http://www.flowerfairies.com/home.html

[insan]

427
4.8.2005



Press release issued by the Registrar



Chamber judgments concerning Greece, Italy and Romania



The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments, none of which is final[1]. (These judgments are available only in French.)



Repetitive cases (in which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the European Convention on Human Rights) can be found at the end of this press release.



Agatianos v. Greece (application no. 16945/02) Violation of Article 6 § 1

The applicant, Christophoros Agatianos, is a Greek national who was born in 1936 and lives in Salonika (Greece).



In February 2000 the Salonika Criminal Court convicted the applicant of defamation and imposed a suspended sentence of two months’ imprisonment. Under Article 489 § 1 and Article 190 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant could not appeal against the judgment because the sentence imposed was less than three months’ imprisonment, that option being open only to the prosecution service. An appeal by the applicant on points of law was dismissed as being out of time on 2 November 2001, on the ground that the period for submitting an appeal on points of law had begun to run from the date of delivery of the judgment and not on the day on which the latter was registered at the court.



Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant maintained that the dismissal of his appeal on points of law as out of time had entailed a breach of his right of access to a court.



The European Court of Human Rights pointed out that it had already held that it was incompatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to dismiss an appeal on points of law on the ground that it had been lodged within a period that began to run from the date of delivery of the judgment rather than the date on which it had been finalised. In the light of that case-law, and of the position which the Greek Court of Cassation now appeared to be adopting in this respect, the Court considered that the applicant in this case had been disproportionately hindered in his right of access to a court. Accordingly, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage.



Zeciri v. Italy (no. 55764/00) Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 5

The applicant, Ljuljzim Zečiri, is a national of Serbia and Montenegro who was born in 1974 and lives in Kosovo, which is where he was born. Prior to his arrest, the applicant was living in Milan.



The applicant was arrested in Italy on 25 December 1998 and charged with attempted armed robbery. He was convicted on 9 March 1999 at the close of a shortened form of procedure (patteggiamento) and sentenced to one year and two months’ imprisonment, together with a fine, which were replaced by a judicial deportation order. The deportation measure was not enforced since the applicant did not have valid documents for returning to his own country.



Ruling on the case after an appeal court judgment had been quashed, the judge of preliminary hearings sentenced the applicant, in a judgment of 16 December 1999 at the close of a shortened form of procedure. to one year and two months’ imprisonment and imposed a fine. These sentences were not replaced by a deportation order.



On 25 February 2000 the applicant was released after serving his sentence in Catanzaro prison. On the same date the Catanzaro police authorities served on him an order stating that he was to be detained in a temporary residence and assistance centre in Lamezia Terme; the applicant was placed in detention. The order, justified by a statement that “the Busto Arsizio judge of preliminary hearings had ordered deportation as a substitute punishment” was initially upheld by a court before being set aside on 21 March 2000.



After his release the applicant left Italy and returned to Kosovo.



The Italian Government acknowledged that the police commissioner and the judicial authorities had erred in ordering and validating the applicant’s deportation and detention without taking account of the fact that the judgment of 9 March 1999 had been quashed. Taking the view that such an error could not be described as “excusable”, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1.



Furthermore, noting that the applicant had had no means of obtaining, with a sufficient degree of certainty, redress for the violation of Article 5 § 1, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention.



The Court considered that the finding of a violation of the Convention constituted in this case sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 500 for costs and expenses.



Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania (nos. 77517/01 and 77722/01) Violation of Article 6 § 1

The applicants, Dorel Stoianova and Claudiu Nedelcu, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1974 and 1975 respectively and live in Bucharest.



Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicants complained of the length of the criminal proceedings brought against them for theft with violence and incitement of third parties to give false evidence.



The Court noted that the proceedings against the applicants comprised two distinct phases: the first had begun on 14 April 1993 with the applicants’ arrest and detention and ended on 11 November 1997 with an order finding that there was no case to answer; the second had begun on 12 May 1999, the date on which the prosecution service ordered that the proceedings be reopened, and had ended on 21 April 2005 when the prosecution service had ordered that the criminal proceedings be closed. Thus, the period extended from 20 June 1994, the date on which Romania recognised the right of individual petition, to 11 November 1997, and from 12 May 1999 to 21 April 2005. It had thus lasted for nine years and four months in total.



Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that such a period of time was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, it concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded each of the applicants EUR 3,500 for non-pecuniary damage.



Repetitive Cases



In the following cases the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:



Violation of Article 6 § 1

Violation of Article 13

Gavalas v. Greece (no. 5077/03)

Ioannidis v. Greece (no. 5072/03)

Spyropoulos v. Greece (no. 5081/03)

Tsaras v. Greece (no. 5085/03)

Vozinos v. Greece (no. 5076/03)



The applicants in the above five cases, all Greek nationals, complained of the length of administrative proceedings they had brought concerning the award of benefits or the calculation of the amount of their retirement pensions. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing with a reasonable time) and also complained under Article 13 of the lack of an effective remedy for the delays.



The Court concluded unanimously in each of these cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, it awarded EUR 6,000 jointly to the applicants in the case of Gavalas v. Greece, EUR 2,000 to the applicant in the case of Spyropoulos v. Greece and EUR 1,500 to each applicant in the cases of Ioannidis v. Greece, Tsaras v. Greece and Vozinos v. Greece. In addition, in each of the cases the Court awarded the applicants EUR 500 for costs and expenses.



***



These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).



Registry of the European Court of Human Rights
F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex
Press contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)
Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)
Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)
Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91



The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17‑member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.
http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2005/ ... 040805.htm

[insan]

Echr Orders Greece To Pay Indemnation In A Lawsuit Filed By ...STRASBOURG (A.A) - European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ordered Greece to pay indemnity in one of two cases filed by Turkish Minority Foundations, ...
gazeteler.hossohbet.com/daily/562962-echr-orders-greece-pay-indemnation-lawsuit-filed-turkish-minority-foun.html

[insan]

Leonidis v Greece [2009] ECHR 43326/05 (8 January 2009) - Human ... - [ Bu sayfanın çevirisini yap ]In the case of Leonidis v Greece, the European Court of Human Rights considered art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of the ...
www.hrlrc.org.au/html/s02_article/artic ... _top_id=63

[christos1]

Oops i forgot to post the link for one of the posts above. I went back and retrieved. Here it is:

Turkey leads in human rights violations, says ECHR

Link here:
http://europenews.dk/en/node/19090