Arama yapmak için lütfen yukarıdaki kutulardan birine aramak istediğiniz terimi girin.

Akbulut Case Of Turkey (1 December 2009 (Reference No: 7076/05))

Gonca Gül SARIOĞLU

In 2004, the applicant was fined due to administrative decision violation by Izmir Magistrates’ Court. The applicant applied ECHR claiming that the indictment of the public prosecutor had not been served on her and she had been unable to defend herself in person or through legal assistance, as there had been no public hearing in her case,. She claimed that Article 6, 7, 8, and 13 of the Convention were violated. The court decided against Turkey indicating that Article 6/1 of the Convention was violated.

Fair Trial, Retrospectivity, Privacy, Effective Remedy.

The applicant complained under 1st paragraph of 6th Article of the Convention that she had been unable to defend herself in person or through legal assistance, as there had been no public hearing in her case. She further stated that the indictment of the public prosecutor had not been served on her. In this respect, she complained that she had been denied adequate time and facilities for the preparation of her defense and the possibility of submitting counter arguments and evidence, including the examination of witnesses, in breach of 3rd paragraph of 6th Article (a), (b) and (d) of the Convention.

The applicant further maintained under Article 7 of the Convention that both the Public Prosecutor and the courts had misinterpreted the domestic law as her omissions did not fall within the scope of Article 526 of the Criminal Code. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant stated that her professional and private life, in particular her reputation as a lawyer, would be severely affected by the unfair judgments. Invoking Article 13 of the Convention, she also submitted that the appeal procedure before the Izmir Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction had not constituted an effective mechanism. Finally, she complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the fine imposed on her by the unfair judgment had deprived her of her property.

The Court observes that the complaints raised under Article 6 of the Convention, concerning the fairness of the proceedings, are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of 3rd paragraph of 35th Article of the Convention. It further notes that this part of the application is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. However, as regards the remaining complaints raised under Articles 7, 8, 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court finds that an examination of the material submitted to it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of these provisions. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be declared inadmissible pursuant to 3rd and 4th of the 35th Article of the Convention.